I thought conservatives opposed frivolous lawsuits:
Ratcheting up her offensive against the news media, Gov. Sarah Palin’s attorney threatened on Saturday to sue mainstream news organizations if they publish “defamatory” stories relating to whether Palin is under federal investigation.
I thought that in order to prove these cases there must be proof of some material loss resulting from allegedly defamatory speech? Sarah voluntarily quit her job–she did not lose her job because of anything that was said.
Also, now that Sarah no longer has a job, how can she afford to pursue such legal actions against corporations which probably have very deep pockets out of which to pay teams of lawyers?
It sounds like more hot air from the beauty queen ditz darling of the religious right to me.
Atlanta Malcontent – hmmm….this seems like it’s not up to your usual standards. If I understand the situation correctly no lawsuits have been filed. If none have been filed, by what standards have you decided these hypothetical lawsuits are frivolous? Wouldn’t it be better to wait to see if any lawsuit filings emerged and then form an opinion?
And IH8……what are you talking about? Again there is no lawsuit concerning Palin’s resignation, at least not that I’m aware of. And even though this should be painfully obvious….Palin doesn’t need deep pockets to fund lawsuits that have never been filed.
This is all about her lawyers announcing that lawsuits will be filed if defamation occurs. Palin has the same rights as other public figures, right?
Take a few deep breaths…..
Public figures take the hits, they don’t threaten lawsuits. The mature ones, anyway.
Somebody tell Sid Blumenthal!
WSJ has the real take on Sarah Palin – I don’t blame her
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124700261179807839.html
That’s right, she’s a victim.
You’re assuming I think the Clintons are mature. I do not.