Comments on: Palin Considered Libel Suit Against Andrew Sullivan

By: Jason Arvak

Jason Arvak — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:43:48 +0000

The standard for libel is “malicious disregard for the truth”. As a practical matter, it means two elements:
(1) The statements must be false
(2) The statements must be made with malicious intent

Even though I agree that the courts are likely to be reluctant to impose restrictions on speech about politicians, I think there is a viable cause of action here. If not Sarah Palin herself, Bristol Palin seems to me to have a valid claim against Andrew Sullivan and other extremist Palin-haters. Imagine the outcry if some of the birthers went after Obama’s children. Why is it ok to attack Bristol Palin?

One does not need to favor Britain’s insanely restrictive libel laws to notice that the Palin-haters have gone round the bend, and the birthers too, for that matter. Maybe a little accountability might be a good thing.

By: PoliGazette » When Obsession Can Be a Good Thing

PoliGazette » When Obsession Can Be a Good Thing — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:41:36 +0000

[...] I wrote an article about Sarah Palin’s apparently toying with the idea earlier this year to file suit against blogger Andrew Sullivan for libel. In a sort of follow-up to that article, today I noticed a peculiarity with Palin: she [...]

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:55:08 +0000

Geeze, some of you people just won’t give it up, will you? Even Andrew doesn’t think this story has legs anymore.

By: John Carpenter

John Carpenter — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:28:16 +0000

Palin’s hesitancy to spank Sullivan in court can be attributed to two reasons: first, coincidently,
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove malice if he or she is a public figure and it is rare for such figures to prevail given the burden of proof required to do that.

Second, Palin’s refusal to bring suit against Sullivan suggests she is thinking about national office. Were she or Harper Collins only interested in book sales, a trial would be a magnificent P.R. coup.
Sullivan’s obsession (conspiracy about the truth of Trig’s birth), legally speaking, doesn’t pass the laugh test. What would be better for Palin if in a trial that captivated the nation, the allegations of
deception concerning Trig’s birth were completely impeached and Sullivan and his ilk came off looking like the vindictive bounty hunters they are.

Now, if Palin has a short political shelf life, count on her using some of her Harper Collins money to
go after the bloggers with a flurry of law suits.