It's not a stupid post...and one has to wonder about the lack of knowledge of those that so contend.
If Glen Rice is deposed and says it happened, if the business partner is deposed and says it happened...the most scurrilous of the allegations will have been at least partially proven.
Truth IS an ABSOLUTE defense...especially if the person is a public figure. If it happened, RH and the author are off the hook 100%.
I’m sure all of that crossed their minds. Maybe they aren’t concerned at all with the deposing of Glenn Rice and the former business partners.
So you would have to assume the Palin attorney knows all that just as well as they do, and thus if the Palins go forward with the suit it is probably because they are certain RH & McG cannot defend via truth.
I still think going forward is a mistake, however, because it is a distraction, a way to put unhelpful noise on her campaign signal, so she should avoid it if possible, just settle. But the threat to follow through has to be sincere or there will be no real pressure to settle, other than uncertainty. That of course may be enough. Lawyers are risk averse by nature. That works in favor of the Palins.
PALINS Business partner already came out publicly and said that it was a lie about the affair with Sarah last week!
I think your problem is that YOU think that these sexual allegations are true or WANT them to be true!
If the allegations are untrue, she calls her Lawyer and sues for defamation.
Now, what did Governor Palin just do?
Another one. Geez, give it up.
>> If it happened, RH and the author are off the hook 100%.
Why would Palin force discovery on a such an affair that’s already been dismissed as slander? Your speculation doesn’t add up.
Truth IS an ABSOLUTE defense...especially if the person is a public figure. If it happened, RH and the author are off the hook 100%.
I'm sorry, that's not necessarily true. Truth is part of a successful defense, but it's not absolute. You can print an absolutely true statement, but it can still be considered libel if your intent is to cause "harm" to the subject. Being a public figure sets a very, very high bar to proving actionable libel when the truth is involved. No, I can't cite case law, I can only point to the writer's guide to libel I used when penning critical product reviews over a decade's time.
So Ms. Palin's task isn't just to show the verity or balderdash of the information, she also needs to show intentional malice in publishing the information. From what I remember of the bru-ha-ha, there is more than enough evidence presented in the press at the time the author moved in next door that would show malicious intent on the part of the author; the e-mails could show in addition not only additional proof of malice on the part of the author, but also that the publisher, Random House, was an active participant in libel as well.
Ms. Palin would also have to prove that the usual remedy available to public figures for bad speech, more speech, can't mitigate the harm caused by the published material. That's one of the reasons that public figures have a problem winning these sorts of lawsuits in court.
No, I'm not a lawyer. Also, I don't know all the facts, so my comment here may be all wet. But, as an author who was exposed regularly to claims of libel in the articles I wrote, I would cringe at the thought of trying to do what Mr. McGinniss did.
My pair-o-pennies in this discussion...