Monday, 30 March 2009

Sarah Palin v anonymous bloggers (updated)

Sarah Palin's relationship with anonymous bloggers has not been a friendly one, to say the least. Maybe she should refer to them as progressive or liberal instead of using this blanket term "anonymous bloggers".

There are countless right-wing individuals who write under pseudonyms or creative screen names. Sarah Palin's description of anonymous bloggers was much ridiculed. In her fantasies, are the progressive ones wearing their bedtime attire, tapping their keyboards from some dark basement and the conservative ones wearing suits, writing from plush offices with panoramic windows? In her mental picture is the first group afflicted by skin conditions and the second have flawless complexions?

But I digress...

Let's focus on her grievances concerning the bloggers she accuses of spreading falsehoods. Has Sarah Palin sued any of these people? Even if the identities of the people spreading such falsehoods are unknown, she would still have the recourse of filing a John Doe suit for defamation, libel, whatever. The ball would be on her court to prove the allegations to be false. She would have an excellent case against the Trig Truthers. The Babygate blogs fall outside the political arena and concern Sarah Palin as a mother and some members of her family.

A lawsuit against any one of these bloggers would be the perfect opportunity to weaken the arguments of the political ones as well. Once she emerged, victorious, from a court of law, she could call a press conference where she would be able to state categorically: "I told the world that these anonymous bloggers were spreading malicious falsehoods and today justice prevailed!" Or something like that.

Proving that political dissenters were spreading lies would be much more complicated, as her political record is in the public domain, so she would be disputing their opinions and interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. But if she won a Babygate lawsuit, because she lumped all bloggers in the same category, she would be able to claim a moral victory against anonymous political dissenters without having to take any direct action in court. Neat, eh?

Why didn't Sarah Palin jump at this fantastic opportunity to kill two birds with one stone?

Because she would have to win the lawsuit. In order to do that she would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, by producing documents and evidence from individuals under oath, that the bloggers were indeed propagating lies about herself, her family and the baby in question in a public court of law.

I'm sure she must have all the necessary evidence to win such a case...

UPDATE: I decided to place a comment I received as an update, because it raises an interesting point.

"A gentle correction that makes your point even stronger: the plaintiff in a defamation suit does not have to carry the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The burden of proof on a party who brings a civil case is far lighter, making it yet more inexplicable not to bring a suit if a blogger supposedly had done something actionable."

Link to a conservative anonymous blog, in the interests of balance and fairness.


bucks_and_bron said...

I've had that attitude about babygate- it would be so easy to prove false, if she really had the proof. I guess that's what makes me wonder which baby is whose.

Bonnie said...

Bingo. A two minute phone call to the birth facilities of these kids to authorize release of medical records and birth attendant statements, and GINO could put to bed all this speculation and prove all those crazy bloggers were just being mean to her.

If events happened exactly the way she said they did, she could easily prove it.

Let us not forget the blogger who was targeted (so extreme she took down her site) with the most vile threats was a talented photographer who was in the process of minutely examining the few photographs available of the "pregnant" SP.

Friends, something just ain't right in a big WTF way.

Anonymous said...

A gentle correction that makes your point even stronger: the plaintiff in a defamation suit does not have to carry the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The burden of proof on a party who brings a civil case is far lighter, making it yet more inexplicable not to bring a suit if a blogger supposedly had done something actionable.

the problem child said...

Excellent deductive conclusions.

Also keeping SP from filing lawsuits against the anonymous may be this -- she would have to go before a judge at the preliminary stages to convince them that her case is strong enough to justify ordering the ISP provider to provide the private information of the defendant so that the style of cause can be amended to include the real name. It would be pretty embarrassing to her if she wasn't even able to muster the evidence to prove her case at the early stage, AND the anonymous person would get to stay anonymous, too. If you can't get over that hurdle, you pretty much might as well kiss your case goodbye.

"Neat, he?"

Another gentle correction/ English usage trivia, as I believe you have indicated you are open to them.

In Canadian English, we would say "Neat, eh?", with the "eh" pronouced like "é" in French. In American English, it would be more correct to use "Neat, hey?", with "hey" pronounced like "hay".

Probably British and Australian and New Zealand and West African Englishes have their own variants. I'll let someone else in your worldwide fanbase address them!

regina said...

The problem child,

Actually, the "he" instead of "eh" was a typo!

I read the posts several times before pressing the "publish" button, but I think word blindness creeps in... my husband is good at catching the typos, he must have been snoozing.

Thanks for catching it. It's been duly corrected. Watch out for my split infinitives, I looove to insert an adverb bang in the middle! It's a weakness and I don't notice it half of the time.



Emily said...

I'm skeptical about "babygate" for the most part, but one does have to wonder why Palin doesn't just release the medical records that would clear things up. If Palin actually has nothing to hide here, she's apparently obsessed with keeping things secret(and she can't keep her own lies and cover-ups straight).

My word verification, by the way, is "dedwit". Interpret as you will.

HistoryGoddess said...

I have stopped by several times and have enjoyed your writing. Thanks!

Virginia Voter said...

Whether or not Sarah is Trig's bio mom is almost irrelevant to all these other "gates". But I stress the word ALMOST. If Sarah is the bio mom of Trig, then there is something damning in her medical files/records which she is just as desperate to keep hidden, otherwise she would have sent all the anonymous blogs, newspapers, and critics the biggest FU on the planet by releasing her records during the campaign.

What we have learned post election, is the Sarah is very thin skinned and reacts harshly to any and all personal and political criticisms almost without thinking about consequences. If she has not released verifiable medical information, there is a very good reason. Whatever is in them is truly damaging to her career.

basheert said...

I agree Babygate was interesting and nilap handled it very badly and it certainly would be easy to clarify (does she ever take the easy road???)
However it is also at this point a distraction from literally everything else this creature is doing in Alaska.

From Wolf Hunts, appointing haters, ignoring an active volcano, allowing native american villages to there no level she would not sink to?? How low will she go before people realize she doesn't give a dam* about the people or the state unless they are her henchmen?

She would gladly turn Alaska into Nazi Germany - it's obvious. She probably is a sociopath - with delusions of grandeur and narcissistic tendencies. From the statements she has made, she also appears to be completely delusional. Massive amounts of thorazine, counseling and long-term institutionalizing would at least get her out of the public eye, and shut up. In fact, sociopaths don't actually get better...

Hopefully the people of Alaska will realize they have a really BIG problem on their hands - and take their actions at the ballot box.

She needs to be voted out - and Alaska needs someone who will address the issues of their state in a humane and rational manner.

basheert said...

VV: Actually you might be right, or it might be the sociopath's need to control. I'd be more inclined to think that she's hiding the baby's DNA results, which to me just means she may have been having an affair and Todd fell on her sword because that's what Todd does.

It also might indicate some type of mental condition (rather than medical)...then again unless and until she chooses to share, no one will know and people will simply have to form their own opinion as to whether she is clinically nuts or simply deranged. There really isn't a third choice in my opinion.

teal said...

...why would GINO state during an interview with ADN about her wild ride [right after the birth] that 'perhaps she wasn't showing too much - thats why the airline staff didn't ask her questions' before allowing her to fly.

Just think back, after the baby was born, GINO or somebody released that picture of her [with the really big stomach] being interviewed at the end of the Leg. the time of the ADN interview, there were no 'known' pictures of 'a preg. GINO.

Seems like GINO back-tracked again! Right after the birth ppl the wild ride story made more noise than she liked - later the picture was released...

But her [above] statement had been made, and that one statement proves much. Have a look at the picture, then match it with her wording; I was not showing much.

There is no way, in that [staged] picture - her with a perfect round belly - about 8/9 months in size, no way a woman with a belly that size could make such a statement and I doubt that she would have been allowed on the plane...but GINO was because there was no big belly like the one in the picture.

Regina I was doing fine, then I read your post and BAM! I was back in the moment...that's my rant for today...I'm OK now...

lemonfair said...

Regina- I'm a regular mudflatter and just catching up on the news. I'm wondering, in light of your post on the illegality of exposing AKM, if anyone is pressing a lawsuit. I'm a New Englander and know from previous experience that Doogan won't respond to me or give a hill of beans what I think, but I could give pennies to the legal cause. And Democrat though I am, I'll give pennies to defeat the man, as well. Please advise, when you have information about this

Duncan said...

Hi Regina,

You are really on a roll, keep it up.

My neighbor is from Wasilla, she says that her friends there are all fed up with GINO.

I guess my WV "mastra" isn't working for GINO anymore.

In Solidarity,


regina said...


I believe AKM would have to bring a lawsuit herself.

The best place to stay informed about any developments in that direction would be the Mudflats forum.

Of course, if there's anything to report I'll be posting it here.

Doogan doesn't give a hill of beans about what ANYBODY thinks!


basheert said...

Just my humble opinion - the whole Babygate is only a symptom of the whole cornucopia of pathology the Lady Nailpin possesses. In so many ways, she has made is so much worse and drawn so much attention (EGO???) to the mishmash of facts she seems to spew that her credibility simply isnt there if it ever was.
She lies pathologically because she is a pathological liar. She doesn't have to lie, but the little voices tell her to.
Frankly she's nuts. Certifiable ... and rapidly destroying a state.