Oh stupid Republicans, when will you ever learn! I would love to see Sarah Palin try to sue anyone for libel and watch it blow up in her face like it did with fellow jerk traveler Roger Clemens.
Maybe someone should tell Caribou Barbie that in a civil suit, the other side gets to depose you — and those questions don't necessarily have to be limited to what is alleged in the lawsuit. Moreover, the bar for a successful libel suit is impossibly high for politicians and full time public figures. Otherwise, whenever someone like Palin got offended by what you or I write on our blogs, we would be sued constantly. And most importantly, truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Follow me below the fold for details:
I mention the "charming" Roger Clemens for a reason. First, I have blogged about his lawsuit a number of times in the past year. Second, Clemens hired a Republican lawyer and the same disastrous Republican PR firm that handled the Enron fraud and AIGs CEO testimony before Congress.Third, they both possess the same nastiness that would cause Clemens to (twice) nearly kill Mike Piazza and Palin to launch a vindictive investigation of her ex brother-in-law AFTER he had been cleared after a previous vindictive investigation of same BiL initiated at the behest of the Palin family cleared the ex BiL of the most serious charges and only reprimanded him of the minor charges like drinking a beer on duty.
The biggest reason why Palin's potential lawsuit is baseless is the rock solid Sullivan standard.
In 1964, the US Supreme Court overturned a lower court verdict that said the NY Times had libeled an Alabama law enforcement officer when the paper published an advertisement condemning police violence in Birmingham against civil rights protesters.
The rationale for the decision, overturning the Alabama verdict for Sullivan concerned the term, actual malice:
Many people have seen the term actual malice as puzzling, since the standard spelled out in the decision refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, not to malicious intent. This term was not newly invented for this case, but was a term from existing libel law. In many jurisdictions, including Alabama (where the case arose), proof of "actual malice" (actual knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth) was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties. Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood. In Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co., 254 N.Y. 95 (1930), similarly, the court said: "The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite. If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of action. No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will and malice."
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice" and gave it constitutional significance, at the same time defining it in terms of the proof which had previously been usual. To a person ignorant of this history, the term seems to contradict its definition, to find malice where there may well be none, and to ignore cases where malice, in the everyday sense of the term, is present.
So, even if Shannyn Moore or any other bloggers published a false story about a pending federal indictment of Sarah Palin regarding her role in the Wasilla Sports Complex, it would not rise to the level of actual malice.
There ARE already allegations about the contract; the builder; the building permits; the building materials;the fact that said contractor, sub contractors, the law firm, and others were contributors to Palin; and the house the Palin's now live in which husband Todd claimed was built by him and some buddies.
Therefore, if reporters like Moore (calling her a blogger is insufficient since she has a radio show too) receive a tip that Palin resigned to avoid being indicted over the Wasilla Sports Complex, it is entirely reasonable to publish such an article.
Palin might have a claim if articles were published about her that said she was a mule for the Colombian Cartel and Todd is a gay porn star because (as far as we know) those are demonstrably false.
The problem with Palin is that she is an ignorant dumb ass narcissist that thinks that she geta to control the law. Perhaps that might be true to a degree were she still governor, but that ship has sailed.
I just can't wait until she files the paper work and Moore's lawyers can start deposing Caribou Barbie and Mr. Arctic Cat and watch the entire thing backfire just like it is with Clemens.