Palin divorce blogger about to get sued by Palin attorneys

[mkultra]

Check out his blog. the essentially exposed him in their letter and are now trying to drag him through the mud.

Looks like he teaches kindergartners to read part time in Anchorage.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/

[lpbk2713]

1. Did you intend to insert a link?

I don't see it. :shrug:

[mkultra]

2. i did and sorry. Link posted.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. It's hard to feel sorry for him

Especially if he's going to just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. People like him are giving her what she wants.

[mkultra]

4. its impossible to know that is the case

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

6. Oh, sure

Just like it's impossible to know that right-wing bloggers throw out everything they can make up about Obama just to see if it sticks.

[mkultra]

8. i had no idea you felt the same away about the left wing bloggers

i guess your one of those thinks that both sides really are the same.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. I want facts, not innuendo

I'd like to think that being able to show our proof puts us ahead of the right-wing, as opposed to us lowering ourselves to their level.

This guy is becoming one of many who are nothing more than a vessel for this woman to carry out her Nixonian strategy.

[mkultra]

11. his post is hardly innuendo

it is, strictly speaking, either a lie or the truth. Its not stated mildly but directly. He got his info from a secret source and stated the very same. So its either truth, he is completely lying, or the source is. I think maybe your looking for a different word here professor.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

12. Considering the best you could do was criticize my choice of verbiage...

....I'm guessing you must concede the overall point of the post, professor.

[mkultra]

13. you succesfully ignored the point then

the point is that there is no way in hell you could possibly know whether his source is true or not. To take a position on that unknown requires you to make the same level of assumption that you criticize bloggers for during their "innuendos"

try to keep up. professor.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. Is it the same source......

...that said Trig was not her baby, or this or that investigation was CERTAIN to be the other shoe dropping on her?

Oh, let me guess your next retort. Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily equal lack of truth. Great. Sounds like the same crap Freepers hide behind with the birth certificate, Reverend Wright or that guy he was supposedly palling around with (forgot his name, I try to purge bullshit you see.....).

Wake me when something concrete hits this woman. Her overly obsessed detractors are swiftly becoming as intellectually childish as she and her supporters have always been, and quite frankly, she loves it. But keep feeding the monkey if you wish, teach.

[mkultra]

19. Its not the same but nice try with the wider net

If you want to wait for concrete evidence before you believe in something, i suggest that is wise. If you choose to NOT accept things as possible until they are proven, then you are a fool.

The problem here is not that he made an unsubstantiated claim, which he did, but rather that she is planning on suing him into silence, which is wrong.

Im guessing free speech for others isn't one of your strong points.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Threatening to sue someone isn't depriving them of their rights.

The blogger has the right to post whatever he wants. The palins have the right to sue him for it. That suit likely won't get very far but it hardly infringes on the bloggers right to free speech.

[mkultra]

24. I would suggest otherwise

i would say that using false filings can reach a level that has a chilling effect on free speech.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. They would have to file for that to be the case.

Regardless, the Constitution doesn't protect ones speech from a lawsuit by a private individual.

[mkultra]

27. very true

the constitution does generically protect free speech though which is why a libel case like this is so difficult to win. In order to protect free speech, the state in question must have anti-frivolous lawsuit laws on the books.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. I'm not saying the speech is not protected, it's just not protected from private lawsuit.

Not by the Constitution anyway. It would be upon the states to protect speech from private lawsuits.

David

[mkultra]

29. i think i just said the same thing

if so, then yes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. I believe so, I was just making sure.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

23. Her "suing him into silence" is part of a bigger picture.....

She can go on TV and crow about protecting her family. Her minions will see her as being the take no bullshit hockey mom. See how the political bullshit plays out?

He can say whatever he wants at this point, but he's a moron for being a willing(maybe witless) water carrier. If his only goal in life is to give his readers their jollies about "possible" bad news for Sarah, then he's nothing more than a useful idiot for the Palin PR machine.

[mkultra]

25. thats possible but yet to be seen

[SleeplessInAlabama]

15. but a divorce isn't something that will just "stick" or not

It's either bad information or a flat out lie if it's not true, and it would likely be refuted very quickly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. It was already refuted by her handlers to CBS, I thought......

...but if it isn't true (look, I'd think it's funny if it were true), she'll be on TV this week crying about the media being mean to her family. Guys like this are giving her the attention she craves and needs. I wouldn't be surprised if she put the bait out herself, knowing that guys like this will jump when they hear it.

She is like Medusa. Don't look at her. Ignore her. Stop giving her what she wants.

[bluestateguy]

5. Libel or slander is very hard to prove if the subject is a public figure

She would have to prove a reckless disregard for the truth AND prove that damage was done to her reputation.

Good luck with that.

[mkultra]

7. this is really what is pertinent here

shes going to try and sue him into silence.

[onenote]

14. Gryphen doesn't understand the concepts of malice and defamatory

Citing ordinary dictionary definitions for legal terms of art, like "malice" in the context of a libel claim, shows that Gryphen doesn't understand the law. Malice, as used by Palin, doesn't refer to an intent to harm. Rather, it refers to the publication of defamatory information knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth. Gryphen's sources better be pretty solid because once the story was denied and Gryphen continued to post it, the usually high bar of "actual malice" in defamation suits brought on behalf of a public figure like palin becomes a lot lower. And the fact that a lot of folks get divorced doesn't make a story with the specific claims in Gryphen's blog any less defamatory.

Now, of course, truth is a defense in defamation cases, but as of the moment, I wouldn't put my money on Gryphen being able to prove the truth of his blog if it came to that.

[mkultra]

21. i think the question would become..

whether Gryphens belief in the source as true rises above the threshold of reckless irregardless of the actual truth. Stated otherwise: Even if the source turns out to be false, does Gryphens reasonable belief in that source as credible elevate him above recklessness.

[lpbk2713]

9. Failin is the perpetual victim.

Letterman made her look like a big jerk. And rightfully so.

[Raschel]

31. She cannot let ONE comment about her go unanswered.

I say keep up the news and drive her crazy having to respond.

Ninety percent of people will be sick of her whining, and the other ten percent are birthers/racists.

[kirby]

16. If lies and rumor spreading was illegal, Palin would be in prison...

I mean all the lying stuff she said about Obama. Accusing him of being anti-American. Accusing him of pal-ing around with terrorists. Questioning his loyalty to our country. Puleeeze.

[Rex]

20. The Repuke party has officially gone insane.

I knew they would eat themselves alive, but live and in realtime? Priceless.