. . . well, he’s badly mistaken, in my opinion, because if I called him an “obnoxious a–hole,” he might sic his lawyers on me. Truth is the ultimate defense in such cases, of course, but his apparent prejudice against Sarah Palin seems to be clouding his judgment.
Now, let’s count the weasel words: “in my opinion” Mataconis is sadly mistaken, and calling him an “obnoxious a–hole” is merely suggested as a hypothetical. I say he “might sic his lawyers on me,” but the “might” relieves me of having to prove that Mataconis is a litigious pest who files nuisance suits at the drop of a hat. (An assertion I have not made.) His “prejudice,” I describe as merely “apparent” — he certainly gives the appearance of being prejudiced against Palin — and it only “seems” that his judgment is clouded by this.
You see? Long years of practice at avoiding libel come in handy at a time like this, so that if Mataconis accuses me of calling him an “obnoxious a–hole,” it would be him who has defamed me.
OK, so I spent about two hours working on a long item at The American Spectator about Sarah Palin’s potential defamation case against Random House. And then Mataconis pops up on Twitter derogating my work, as if he were indeed an obnoxious a–hole.
It is not my habit to engage in arguments 140 characters at a time, when I might as well get a blog post of it. My American Spectator item was written in response to a column today by David Magee:
But here’s the problem with suing [Joe] McGinnis and the publisher: Palin would have to prove that the allegations in the book are all lies if she proceeded with a lawsuit.
She’s a public figure — considerably so — and it’s hard to prove libel when you are in the public eye in the first place. . . .
She would have to clear her name completely.
And here’s what I wrote at The American Spectator:
This is absurd. If the Palins do sue, their suit will specify defamatory statements in McGinniss’s book that they believe they can prove false. They do not have to prove every allegation false, nor would Sarah “have to clear her name completely.” Only evidence and testimony relevant to those disputed allegations will be admissible, and so there is no basis for Magee’s assertion that Palin would have to address every lurid claim in the McGinniss book.
What Magee (and Mataconis) are thinking about is the old legal axiom, “Discovery is a bitch.” Before you sue someone for defamation, you have to think about what evidence the defense might be able to demand you, as the plaintiff, produce in the discovery phase of the suit. But they can only demand evidence that might be relevant to the truth of a statement that you have claimed is false and defamatory.
So if Palin’s suit doesn’t dispute, for example, McGinniss’s cocaine-and-adultery tales, then Random House can’t go on a fishing expedition in that area. Assuming that her suit would be very specific about which statements she disputed — cherry-picking those most easily proven false — then the “discovery is a bitch” factor would be no deterrent to suing.
Certainly her lawyers would advise her very carefully in such a matter, and they might even advise her against suing. But if she does sue, she need not “clear her name completely” or prove herself a virtuous Saint Sarah in order to prevail. If she exposes McGinniss as having published multiple lies, she destroys his credibility even as to the truth of accusations that she does not specifically dispute. McGinniss’s e-mail to Jesse Griffin appears very damaging to Random House, and the letter Palin’s lawyer sent to Random House suggests a suspicion that there may be other e-mails equally damaging.
And as I have repeatedly said, McGinniss’s known association with Griffin is damaging. In my item at The American Spectator, I call Griffin a “lying pervert” — without fear of libel. It is an objective fact that Griffin lied about his “exclusive” that Palins were divorcing. (More than two years later, they’re still married.) So there’s your “lying” and as for the “pervert,” permit me to remind you:
“You know the reason that many people enjoy adult movies is that it is sexy to watch people making love. . . . I think that this trend toward real people having real sex is definitely the way to go. I always had a little guilt watching an adult movie and wondering if the female performer was a drug addict, or victim of molestation, just prostituting herself to make a buck. I am not Jewish, so guilt and sex don’t really go together for me. But when you see a video of an amateur couple having sex you can tell that they are simply doing it for the sheer excitement of sharing their passion with a bunch of middle aged pervs who are going to wank off to their sexual exploits. Well great here comes that guilt again.”
— “Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, June 3, 2007
“Yes I DO work in a Kindergarten class during the school year. My main job affords me some time during the day and I have chosen to use it teaching children to read, and helping them to become more independent.”
— “Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, Aug. 2, 2009
“Having somebody reveal your “secret identity” can be a little unsettling . . .”
— “Gryphen,” A/K/A, Jesse Griffin, Aug. 4, 2009
“All of the fun of sex is drained by making all of these rules and labels. If sex is not naughty then it is almost not worth doing. I love kids, but in my opinion they are just a side effect of a healthy sex life.”
— Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, June 14, 2007
“And your penis will respond more readily if you take it out and put it through its paces more often. Duh! So the next time your girlfriend/wife/mother bust you for watching porn on your computer, simply tell her that you are exercising and you would appreciate some privacy.”
— “Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, July 7, 2008
“That’s right I am promoting self pleasure. Does that really surprise anybody?”
— Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, Oct. 17, 2007
“I do it because it brings me joy to work with these children and I believe, and have been told, that I am very good at it . . .
“[Y]ou now know my dirty little secret. I am an assistant teacher in a room full of five year old children. . . .”
— Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, Aug. 2, 2009
“I am teaching my boys to wear dresses and swish when they walk because being ignorant or drug addicted is no longer a guarantee of being passed over. If your not willing to suck cock then pack up your going to Iraq.”
— “Gryphen,” a/k/a Jesse Griffin, June 10, 2005
It seems Griffin has attempted to scrub his archives, but Dan Riehl still has all the cache files of the “Gryphen” blog he downloaded back when Jesse was forced out of his kindergarten job. The fact that McGinniss turned to Griffin for help in vetting his “tawdry gossip” is just about all you need to know about what kind of journalism McGinniss was doing.
If I were a Random House executive, I’d be very worried right now.
And if I were an oxnoxious a–hole . . . well, let’s don’t talk about Doug Mataconis. He might sic his lawyers on us.
