Sarah Palin and “actual malice”

This news (below) was to be expected. Thing is, people who sue for defamation should first grasp the definition of defamation.

So now I’m musing over whether Palin’s lawyers weren’t able to explain “defamation” to her, along with the likelihood of losing this suit or were they enthusiastic about it because either (a) they didn’t understand a defamation lawsuit against a highly credible news organization or (b) they did, but they’re not doing this on contingency, i.e., Palin is paying them directly.

So it’s Monday morning and calm contemplation of defamation is what one can do to wake up to the rest of the day.

Times Lawyers Say They’ll Seek Early Dismissal of Palin’s Defamation Claim

Andrew Denney, New York Law Journal

 

Lawyers for The New York Times came out swinging on Friday in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the paper over an editorial linking her to a mass shooting, arguing the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate could not show The Times acted with actual malice.

This entry was posted in A. Why sue and who sues?, F. The lawyer, G. Retainers and legal fees and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.