Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

Libel requires a number of components to be present in order for the case to be viable in court, including knowingly portraying a false statement to be true (as opposed to presenting a speculative statement worthy of further investigation). Calling somebody "stupid" is NOT libelous.

Yet Palin spent all of last autumn making derogatory and untrue remarks about Obama--palin' around with terrorists, that he is anti-American and so on.

Sorry, Palin's attorney, but your girl cannot expect to not get what she gave.

Here she comes, just like she said she would "for those bloggers". Oh my, head for the exits.

Only an idiot would threaten journalists for exercising their First Amendment right on the Fourth of July.

I think it's amazing that someone got an attorney to jump on this thing so fast, and on a Saturday that's a national holiday, too.

Slander and libel laws are different for public figures. It's very hard for a public figure to win such a case.

In matters of libel, public figures are not as other mortals, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a series of cases since 1964, the court has ruled that a public figure cannot collect libel damages without proving that "actual malice" was involved in the publishing of inaccurate and defamatory material. Actual malice, said the court, means publishing with knowledge that a statement is false or with "reckless disregard" of whether it is false or not.

If the bloggers wrote as an opinion or as a matter of public interest, it becomes almost impossible to win.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

So it's possible there will be a lot of huffing and puffing, but it is not likely to blow the house down.

Let's look at another interesting quote from usfreestar's link in #1:

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

So how many people had heard of the specific allegations the Palin camp is complaining about? I hadn't (though it's possible I would have read a seed on Newsvine about it). This may be a case of Palin shooting herself in the foot by publiciziing obscure allegations.

i want palin brought up on charges of impersonating a governor...and maybe an intelligent person...and how about impersonating a grown-up...and don't forget a mother...and a ....

luv,

ron

I wonder if any politician has ever been able to win such a suit, or if any have ever been stupid enough to even file one. Let's ask the librarian in Wasilla. I hear she can tell us plenty about Sarah's understanding of the First Amendment too!

The goal is probably to scare people who know things out of talking about them. Kind of like thugs breaking up a shop to warn the owner not to mention he saw the thugs murder someone in the street.

Palin hasn't got the money to pay an expensive attorney to handle a libel suit where the chances of winning are nil. The Alaskan blogger merely repeated old rumors and said they were rumors and speculation. Now that Palin has threatened to sue her, the rumors and speculation are spread ten fold because everyone she threatened to sue are reporting that she threatened to sue and what the rumors are. Brilliant strategy.