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.
.
