Replies

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...