Sarah Palin attorney John Tiemessen served notice today on the publishers of the recently released book, "The Rogue", that he was preparing to sue for defamation:
Tiemessen writes in the letter that [an email allegedly written by author Joe McGinnis] “clearly describes the fact that Mr. McGinniss researched and investigated many false and scurrilous allegations, and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence anywhere backing these allegations.”
Palin’s attorney writes that it is “malicious” for Crown to publish the book when it has proof McGinniss and Crown “were fully aware the statements in the book were false, intended to be false, and were intended to harm.”
“The final work that was published contains most of the stories that Mr. McGinniss complains were nothing more than ‘tawdry gossip’ that amounted to the wishful fantasies of disturbed individuals,” Tiemessen writes. “Since both your company, and the author, clearly knew the statements were false, admitted they had no basis in fact or reality, but decided to publish in order to harm Governor Palin’s family, you and Mr. McGinniss have defamed the Palins.”
Tiemessen ends the letter by warning the publishing house not to “delete emails or destroy records” that may be used in the suit.
http://abcnews.go.com/...
As a public figure, it is difficult in the United States to win a defamation lawsuit. Our Constitution provides a higher level of protection for the media from defamation suits as compared to other countries such as the U.K. The basic elements of defamation are as follows:
1. The statement, which must be about another person, must be false.
2. The statement must be ‘published’ to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed.
3. The person about whom the defamatory statement is made must be ‘damaged’ by the statement.
If the statement in question concerns a public figure, however, then the First Amendment to the Constitution comes into play and requires proof of the foregoing plus a finding of "actual malice". Courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context to mean publishing a statement while either
* knowing that it is false; or
* acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.
This is where defamation suits affecting public figures usually fall apart. As long as the publisher has a colorable argument that he or she believed a particular statement to be true, they are protected, even if the statement is provably false. Palin's lawyers appear to be hanging their hats on the McGinniss email as proof of actual malice.
This threat certainly won't help repair Palin's image as thin-skinned and vindictive, but at the least it should be some popcorn-worthy entertainment, especially for us lawyer types. Let the show begin!