Replies

you may know more about this than me honestly, in the back of my mind I thought public figures (especially political ones) were nearly completely stripped of protection from defamation. But I could be wrong, and probably am since I know almost nothing about the law.

I am just trying to look for any little fact or tid bit that might indicate which decision Palin is likely to reach.

I found this on the internet in regards to this issue.

quote “public figures can sue for libel or slander, but it is exceedingly difficult for them to win. The Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan set the standard, called actual malice. Public figures have to prove that not only was the statement false, but also that the speaker or writer either knew the statement was false or published the statement with “reckless disregard” for whether the statement was true or false.

Since libel or slander is by definition a false statement, truth is a defense. So the plaintiff is the one who ends up on trial, because he or she has to prove the accusations against him or her are false.

For example, if Smith publishes a statement that Jones stole money, and Jones sues Smith for libel, Smith will probably defend himself by saying the statement is true; then he will put forth all of the things that make him think Jones is a thief.

Except in rare cases, court cases are on the public record. So a lot more people will find out that Smith thinks Jones is a thief because of Jones’ own lawsuit. If the media cover the case, millions more people could learn about the accusations that would not have if Jones had not sued.”

so I was sort of right, but not completely.

I understand and normally you would be right however there are apparently e-mails from the author to the publisher saying that he only had gossip no proof about any of the charges in the book.

This removes what is the usual defense in a case like this which is "Absence of Malice" meaning that their story may be a pack of lies but unless you can prove they knew it was groundless they are protected. This is generally very hard to prove. In this case they have it in writing.

The most famous case I can think of was Carol Burnett v The National Enquirer, she proved that their story had no basis in fact and they knew it. NE had to pay up and say "Sorry!"

Is she running? Your guess is as good as mine. If she was she would sue with this kind of evidence, if she wasn't she would still sue as some of the stuff included attacks on her children.

Personally I have long regretted that dueling is no longer legal.