Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sarah Barracuda; All

Hate do disapoint y’all, but it’s just about impossible to win a slander lawsuit. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn’t true, the author knew it wasn’t true (how do you prove what someone beleived?), and as motivated by malice. That’s a tall order. Remember Kitty Kelly alleging Nancy Reagan was having affairs?


10 posted on 09/22/2011 5:44:05 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen andY let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Hugin

Even if she doesn’t sue McGinnis and Random House, just showing everyone what complete and utter liars they all are is good enough for me. Exposing them is just as good as winning any lawsuit against them


13 posted on 09/22/2011 5:46:45 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

A lot of these clowns like MCGINNIS have such big egos that they say on the internet what they believe.Case closed.


21 posted on 09/22/2011 5:50:49 PM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

...but it’s a whole lot easier to force a settlement, especially when McGinnis’ own emails clear half the burden out of the gate and when as a defendent you need to stop the bad publicity asap.....


28 posted on 09/22/2011 5:55:33 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
it’s just about impossible to win a slander lawsuit

If the smear is written, not verbal, it's libel, not slander. And while it helps to be able to prove that the allegation is false and motivated by malice, reckless disregard of the truth also qualifies, even if the complainant is famous. Not that I think it will be hard to come up with the "malice" part, especially with the e-mail trails that have started appearing.

31 posted on 09/22/2011 5:59:04 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
I am unaware of any jurisdiction in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the appropriate standard for a civil claim. It is generally "preponderance of the evidence", with some special proofs requiring "clear and convincing" evidence. But not beyond a reasonable doubt, which generally is reserved for criminal matter.

Even if there is some state that has a BARD as the standard for a civil case, she'll be able to sue him in one that doesn't.

37 posted on 09/22/2011 6:13:58 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

Have you looked at the letter on Breitbart?
The dude knew it wasn’t true.


45 posted on 09/22/2011 6:48:36 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
it’s just about impossible to win a slander lawsuit . . .

For the record, SLANDER is spoken/oral falsehoods; LIBEL is a written falsehood.

49 posted on 09/22/2011 7:05:19 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

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.


61 posted on 09/23/2011 8:33:50 AM PDT by MattWilliamsLaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson