Posted on 09/22/2011 5:34:16 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
First, it would be a libel rather than a slander suit. Second, the standard required in a civil suit for defamation is “clear and convincing” proof rather than the criminal standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Finally, under New York Times v. Sullivan (SCt, 1964), proving malice against a public official can be either knowledge that the statement was false, OR reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. In light of the facts thus far made evident, it would appear that the Palins would have a good chance of prevailing against McGinniss under the latter definition of malice.
Palin’s brother responds to the lies:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.