My 10 year old can formulate a better reply than that. If she wants to run with the big dogs, she has to have a thicker skin. And what harm has been done anyway? Even the NYT has said that the book is nothing but unfounded rumor. She’d have to show someone read it and believed it,and there is no one out there pointing to this book as evidence or proof of anything.
You have no clue again! Because you are ignorant of basic facts surrounding the potential case. But I’m not going to lead you like a child when you can look it up for yourself
You wrote: “And what harm has been done anyway?”
A lib screamed, “Your mother’s a whore!” at Bristol Palin after the book came out. While this is just an example, emotional damages are still damages. Furthermore, Sarah isn’t running: can the book be blamed for that? You bet it can, since libs DO believe the lies in it, and would vote against her.
Just because most celebs don’t sue doesn’t mean that libel is harmless; most celebs don’t have the admission by the author that the allegations are baseless. This is a slam-dunk suit that will end in a large award or settlement.
What harm to her? Are you kidding? Have you seen the filth spewing up from the sewer over on Twitter? Yes that junk has been published and yes there are thousands who are not only believing it but getting perverse joy from it. Defamation law regards accusations of moral turpitude so inherently damaging you don’t even need to show specific damages. The harm inflicted by these lies might never be eradicated, even with Random House and McGinniss doing a high profile, often repeated, groveling retraction. Many people don’t think deeply about the negative things they hear about people, and a bad first impression can be difficult to overcome, even with the truth. Oh yes, the harm is quite real, and while a retraction and a large financial settlement are appropriate, they are only a small step in the right direction, not by any means a full redress of the scars inflicted by such lies.
I find it interesting, BTW, that you consider it mere whining to be concerned for one’s reputation. Is that a standard you are willing to apply to yourself? Say you were running for mayor of your town, and the local newspaper published an anonymous letter claiming to be from one of your neighbors that made you out to be a pedophile. Now all your friends and actual neighbors ask you about it, or start telling their children to avoid you, on top of which you get creamed in an election you were on cruise control to win. Do we feel the pain yet? Is that not harm? Do you really expect any of us to take you seriously that you would not want to defend your own reputation? Or would you really just let it happen, for fear of seeming to be a whiner, even f it was destroying your family, your friendships, your job, and your ability to run for office or otherwise improve your life?
In the history of law, reputation is actually considered a component of the right to life, because destruction of reputation is really the destruction of the ability to live one’s life. It is exile, a prison, a palpable loss of freedom. If you believe in the right to life, you cannot exclude from that the right to protect your life when it is threatened, either directly, or through the unjust destruction of your reputation. Defamation law is to your reputation what the second amendment is to your physical life, a right of self-protection, and Palin has as much right to use it as you and I have to keep, bear, and use firearms when necessary.
As for the “quitting” meme, get over it. You’re a quitter too. Yes you are. Are you still employed in the very first job you ever held? No? Were you fired or did you quit? If you quit, you’re a quitter. See the problem? “Quit” is just a smear word. It means nothing because it explains nothing. No doubt you quit because you had good reason. Well and good. Then quitting is OK if the reason is good, right? Care to apply the same rule to Palin as you do to yourself?
Or would you accuse a field commander of “quitting” if he backed his men out of a firefight he knew they couldn’t win, so they could come back later to reengage the same enemy on a battle field better suited to victory? Because if you still consider that quitting, then all is lost, because our own George Washington is a quitter by your standards, as he often used strategic retreat as a way to beat a numerically superior enemy. My own position is if it’s good enough for Washington, it’s good enough for Palin.