To win a libel lawsuit, a public official or public figure must not only prove that something published about them was documentably false but also that it was published with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Those are standards which are almost impossible to meet except in the most egregious cases.
There is nothing I've read about the movie that comes close to giving grounds for a successful libel lawsuit. Sarah Palin is clearly a “public figure” under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law, and furthermore, the movie involves actions she took while serving as governor of a state who was running for vice-president.
Basically that means she's fair game. I think Sarah Palin is a tough woman and is quite capable of handling it, though she probably wishes she could do serious harm to the filmmakers.
The First Amendment exists for a reason.
As conservatives, we want to be able to freely criticize not only elected officials like President Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid but also liberal public figures like George Soros, Ariana Huffington, and lots of others. Political disagreements should be settled in the court of public opinion, not in the court of law.
God forbid that we ever have to deal with liberals suing us for libel and forcing us to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend ourselves when we say bad things about people we don't like.
14 posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:34:34 AM by Resettozero: “Why is this not slander against Sarah Palin? Can HBO portray anyone they want anyway they like against that person’s wishes? Can this mistaken writer call someone a liar in print without evidence and just because he wants to? Are slanderous attacks such as this one no longer actionable in court? Is there no such thing as slander or libel anymore? At what dividing point does the law distinguish between a public person and a private person?Sincerely.”
Thanks for your reasoned response which is also my understanding of the way slander and libel laws are being intrepreted.
Accordingly, “under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law,” no slander or libel laws can be applied against anyone who speaks lies against any “public figure”, whoever that may be.
Please don’t miss my point that I am referring to out-and-out lies and not just a criticism or joke about a public person; lies that are provably wrong and are harmful, especially to a public person The way things are, I believe, is not the way the First Amendment was intended to be upheld.
Also, you mention the flip side of the coin: What about the left suing the right for libel. Well, I always tell the provable truth about anyone and everyone and expect to have legal recourse when I (my name) am libeled or slandered. I post on FR; what keeps me from being called a “public person”? A case could be made for it. Thus, there’s no real legal protection for most Americans against libel or slander, unless it involves a corporation with a buzillion dollars and retained lawyers to push it.
Liberals already sue anyone anytime they like. This must be evened out somehow.