Just when you thought the saga of clueless and soon to be ex-governor Sarah Palin couldn't become any stupider, she (via her law firm) is now threatening to sue people who say bad things about her for defamation:
"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable."
Considering that Palin is a documented serial liar, it's pretty rich when she threatens to sue others for what she claims is lying.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech...
Lame. Last time I checked, the Huffington Post, MSNBC, NYTimes and Washignton Post do not publish from Alaska.
Uhm .. there's a pretty big difference between lying and defamation.
If I say that I am a 6'6" athlete with gorgeous good looks and a 190 IQ, that doesn't hurt anyone. Who could possibly sue me for that?
On the other hand, if I repeatedly tell people that you are under investigation by CSIS for child molestation and bestiality, you'd have some damn good grounds to sue me.
Don't let your ideological blinders fool you. Whether she's a liar or not is completely irrelevant in this case.
Alex:
1. You see the differences between lying and defamation; I see the similarities. In the US, at least, you can't defame someone if you made a statement you honestly believed to be true. (Not so for Canada, where you can be sued for libel even if the statement you made was true.)
2. Palin, or her lawyers, should know about the "public figure" exemption for libel under US law, which makes it incredibly difficult for people in her position to win a libel case.
3. When Palin claimed that Obama "pals around with terrorists", if that's not a lie that constitutes defamation, I don't know what is.
Maybe she'll sure them in England? All those publications are available on the internet in England, and given English libel law she'd probably win.
1. That's true enough, but threatening to sue them tends to motivate people to publish a public retraction of their statements. That's probably what she's going for.
2. See above :)
3. Ayers is a terrorist. There really is no doubt that. There's some debate about how close of a relationship Obama had with Ayers, but there's also no question that they at least knew each other. In other words, the statement Palin made is at least based in reality, whereas the accusations made against her by the media are pure fabrication.
Or are you going to argue that her statement is a lie because she said "terrorists" instead of "a terrorist"? I'm not sure exactly which part of her accusation you're objecting to.
Alex:
There's no way Palin will get a retraction based on the statements published so far.
As for Ayers, is it your belief that "once a terrorist, always a terrorist"? I agree that his behavior 40 years ago was reprehensible, but is the man today the same? Did Obama really "pal around" with him? And yes, I am objecting to the use of the plural. Taken all together, I don't hesitate to classify Palin's statement as a lie.
That's possible. I guess we'll see.
As for Ayers ... it's a question of definitions. I guess you could call him a "reformed terrorist". But we rarely qualify such terms. Someone who commits murder is considered a murderer, regardless of how long ago the offense occurred. Ditto for rapists. It's not any different for terrorists.
Plus I'm not sure that he actually is reformed. He's never expressed any regret, and has - in his roundabout way - implied that he still sees nothing wrong with his actions.
Palins statement may have been misleading, but it was in no way a lie. It's certainly no worse than many of the things that were said about her during the campaign. I wasn't impressed with either side of the last election, and with the media least of all.
I got the impression that Palin's sttement about "pallin' around with terrorists" was intended to suggest that Obama is sympathetic to, and knowingly supports terrorists who are working to commit violence against the United States. I say that is definitely disingenuous, dishonest, and deceitful. There is valid cause for speculating that Palin's motivation for quitting might involve a significant scandal, having to do with suspicious relations that had been discussed before. Of course, such speculation is merely that--speculation, which arises because what Palin did was extremely unusual. What other governor quit before completing a first term except those who accepted another, offered, position (or died or went to jail, or were impeached)?
"...whereas the accusations made against her by the media are pure fabrication."
Which accusations are you referring to, and how do you know that they are 'pure fabrication'? Because Palin said so?
Do you think she really did kill the 'bridge to nowhere' because she is a 'fiscal conservative'?
Bill Ayers & Bernadette Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists. They are also friends of Obama. Reverend Wright also has some interesting perspectives on 9/11.
Wow, I stumbled across this blog (in the usual internet way, I can't even retrace my steps) and for a while, found it interesting though I don't particularly sympathize with militant atheism.
Further, I'm neither Republican nor a Palin supporter. But your loathing for her has clearly stunted your logical faculties. The serial liar link you provided provides a retraction of at least one of its own contentions.
Ayers has stated (paraphrasing, it's too late in the evening to look it up) "we didn't do enough" when referring to his actions in the '60's.
Given your strident atheism, I can see why you detest Palin and there's plenty about her to criticize but your shots are poorly aimed.
King:
When you say At least one of her lies turned out to be true, that's a pretty tepid defense of Sarah Palin.
As for "strident atheism" - I guess that's your term for refusing to kowtow to the theocrats.
Post a Comment