Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory ''spoken'' statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as ''written'' words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.

A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase ''famosus libellus'' means a libelous writing.

History

The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (''convicium adversus bonos mores''). The Praetorian Edict, codified circa 130 A.D., declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: "qui, advesus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium Weret, in eum iudicium dabo." In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. According to Ulpian, not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo, he asserted that the offense consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ("adversus bonos mores huius civitatis") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ("quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret") the person exposed thereto. Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an ''actio injurarum''. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made. But even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel, and proving his assertions to be true. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. In the first Satire of their second book, Horace alludes to this provision in a dialogue with the lawyer Trebatius, by punning on ''mala carmina'' at lines 82-84:

si mala condiderit in quem quis carmina jus est judiciumque. esto, siquis mala; sed bona siquis judice condiderit laudatus Caesare?

Horace's pun turns on the two possible meanings of ''mala'', "evil and unlawful," or "of poor quality".

Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the ''libri'' or ''libelli famosi'', from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.

Types

Slander

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the ''form'' in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.

Libel

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.

Cases involving libel

An early example of libel would be the case of John Peter Zenger. Zenger was hired to publish New York Weekly Journal. When he printed another man’s article that criticized William Cosby, the governor of New York at the time, Zenger was accused of seditious libel. The verdict in the 1735 case was returned as "not guilty" on the charge of seditious libel, having proved that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel would be the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) which involved a newspaper publication. The Supreme Court overruled a state court in Alabama that had found the New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticized Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what the New York Times printed was false, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, which was defined as a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".

Criminal defamation

Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, a free expression advocacy group, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state.

It should be noted that there can be regional statutes as well that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States, defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are ten states (Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington) that have criminal statues regarding defamation of the dead.

The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the United States and Canada.

Defenses

Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

Truth

In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous. Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. From 'Other Defenses' (below), under the 'Opinion' section: "However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[17]" To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

Under English common law, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defence only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace, rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation ''per se''; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defence in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the "Public Benefit".

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense. Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive".

It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public".

Noonan v. Staples is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defense to libel, but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because for some reason Staples didn't argue First Amendment protection for its statements. (see footnote at bottom of page 15 of the courts decision) The courts often don't decide cases on issues not argued by the parties, and thus the court assumed for the sake of that particular case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Other defenses

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.

Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.

Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.

Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.

Statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication.

No Third-party communication: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement.

No actual injury: If there ''is'' third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse.

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is ''prima facie'' not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.

Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'', 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

Freedom of speech

Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others.

Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.

There is a broader consensus against laws that ''criminalize'' defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalize defamation. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was ''Lingens v. Austria'' (1986).

Defamation laws by jurisdiction

Internationally

Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states :1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. :2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Asia

Azerbaijan

In Azerbaijan, the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to “500 times the amount of minimum salaries”, public work for up to 240 hours, correctional work for up to one year, or imprisonment of up to six months. Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime “of grave or very grave nature” (Article 147.2). The crime of insult (Article 148) can lead to a fine of up to 1000 times the minimum wage, or to the same penalties of defamation for public work, correctional work or imprisonment.

According to the OSCE report on defamation laws, “Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code”.

People's Republic of China

Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国刑法) criminalizes defamation.

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China (中華民國刑法) criminalizes defamation, held constitutional on 7 July 2000 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan (司法院大法官).

Republic of Korea

Korea is interesting as truth is not important with defamation; any words harming another can be considered illegal and may be punishable with fines and imprisonment. “Defamation” is covered by several laws in Korea, civil law, traditional criminal law & modern internet criminal law-under the 'Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc.' (internet and email related laws) – 2005 CHAPTER IX Article 61 (Penal Provisions) This shows defamation varies significantly from North American laws and in general by country and by case. As image and 'public face' is very important in East Asia, it is incredibly easy to sue for 'loss of face' (defamation) in Korea. Even middle school students are active with cases (Little Suzie said my son was 'stupid', etc.).

(1) Any person who has defamed any other person by alleging openly facts through information and communications networks [anyone stating false comments by internet and email] with the purpose of slandering him shall be subject to imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than 3 years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

(2) Any person who has defamed any other person by alleging openly false facts via information and communications networks [anyone stating true comments on the internet and email] with the purpose of slandering him/her shall be subject to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or the suspension of disqualification for not more than 10 years, or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won [approximately US$50,000 plus since this is only criminal law, in Korea you can also sue for more damages with civil actions].

As of June 2010, cases were heard before Korean courts and individuals were fined a few thousand dollars for emailing true facts (an email stated “she admitted she was guilty” to a lawyer managing a related case). These comments were identified in email sent to foreign lawyers [considered privileged and confidential in Canada] managing a related case in Canada. True statements about a Korean individual were sent to answer questions from a Canadian lawyer and these statements were decided by Korean court to be punishable with a fine. International “comity” procedure or “intent” appear not important in Korea.

Former Soviet Union

In the former Soviet Union, defamatory insults “could only constitute a criminal offense, not a civil wrong”.

Nepal

Defamation Act, 1859

Europe

Albania

According to the Criminal Code of Albania, defamation is a crime. Insulting (Article 119) can lead to a fine or up to six months of imprisonment (if in public, up to a year), while libel (Article 120) may result in a fine or up to a year of prison (up to 2 years when in public). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from 1 to 3 years of imprisonment.

Austria

In Austria, the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code. Related criminal offenses include “slander and assault” (Article 115), that happens “if a person insults, mocks, mistreats or threatens will ill-treatment another one in public”, and yet “malicious falsehood” (Article 297), defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution.

Belgium

In Belgium, crimes against honour are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code, Articles 443 to 453-bis. Someone is guilty of calumny « when law admits proof of the alleged fact » and of defamation “when law does not admit this evidence” (Article 443). The penalty is 8 days to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine (Article 444). In addition, the crime of “calumnious denunciation” (Article 445) is punished with 15 days to six months in prison, plus a fine. In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) « when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race, color of the skin, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, age, patrimony, philosophical or religious belief, present or future health condition, disability, native language, political beliefs, physical or genetical characteristic, or social origin.”

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, defamation is formally a criminal offense, but the penalty of imprisonment has been abolished in 1999. Articles 146 (insult), 147 (criminal defamation) and 148 (public insult) of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine.

Croatia

In Croatia, the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison, or a fine of “up to 100 daily incomes” (Criminal Code, Article 199). If the crime is committed in public, penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment, or a fine of “up to 150 daily incomes” (Article 199-2). Moreover, the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation. The maximum penalty is one year in prison, or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes (Article 200-1). If the crime is committed in public, the prison term can reach one year (Article 200-2). On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the specific context is that of a scientific work, literary work, work of art, public information conducted by a politician or a government official, journalistic work, or the defense of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases ''provided that'' the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone's reputation.

Czech Republic

According to the Czech Criminal Code, Article 184, defamation is a crime. Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year (Article 184-1) or, if the crime is committed through the press, film, radio, TV, publicly accessible computer network, or by “similarly effective” methods, the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity.

Denmark

In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. In addition, Article 266-b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or “sexual inclination”.

Finland

In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to the Criminal Code, Chapter 24, Section 9, Clause (1), § (1), with a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months or a fine. When the defamation occurs in public, the crime is “aggravated defamation” (Chapter 24, Section 10), with a maximum punishment of two years in prison or a fine. In addition, there’s also a crime called “invasion of personal reputation” (Chapter 24, Section 8), that deals with the public dissemination of information that can harm one’s private life. However, personalities involved in the fields of politics, business, public office or public position, “or in a comparable position”, are specifically not protected by this article.

Germany

In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing. The relevant offences of Germany's Criminal Code are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), , §192 ("insult" with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are §190 (Criminal conviction as proof of truth), §193 (No defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.

Greece

In Greece, the maximum prison term for defamation, libel or insult is five years, while the maximum fine is € 15,000.

The crime of insult (Article 361, § 1, of the Penal Code) may lead to up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine, while unprovoked insult (Article 361-A, § 1) is punished with at least three months in prison. In addition, defamation may result in up to two months in prison and/or a fine, while aggravated defamation can lead to at least 3 months of prison, plus a possible fine (Article 363) and deprivation of the offender's civil rights. Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months (Penal Code, Article 365).

Italy

In Italy, there are different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) refers to offending one's honor and is punished with up to six months in prison or up to 516 Euros in fine. If the offense refers to the attribution of a determined fact and is committed before many persons, penalties are doubled to up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine. In addition, the crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one’s reputation before many persons, and has a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2065 Euros if the offense consists of the attribution of a determined fact. When the offense happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least 516 Euros.

Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.

Norway

In Norway, defamation is a crime punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine (Penal Code, Chapter 23, § 246). When the offense is likely to harm one's “good name” and reputation, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum prison term goes up to one year, and if the defamation happens in print, in broadcasting or through a especially aggravating circumstance, imprisonment may reach two years (§ 247). When the offender acts “against his better judgment”, he is liable to a maximum prison term of three years (§ 248). According to § 251, defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person, unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons, when it may also be prosecuted by public authorities.

Under the new Penal Code, decided upon by the Parliament in 2005, defamation will cease to exist as a crime. Rather, any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits. The Penal Code has not taken effect as of 2010, and there are no set date for this.

Poland

In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him “to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity”. Penalties include fine, limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code). The penalty is more severe when the offense happens through the media (Article 212.2). When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is 3 years.

Portugal

In Portugal, defamation crimes are: “defamation” (article 180 of the Penal Code; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), “injuries” (art. 181; up to 3 months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and “offense to the memory of a deceased person” (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of “public knowledge of the court decision” (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of “incitation of a crime” (article 297; up to 3 years in prison, or fine).

Spain

In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of the Penal Code) consists of offending one's reputation knowing the falsity of the offense, or with a reckless contempt for truth. Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months-fine, and for other cases only a fine of 6 to 12 months-fine (Article 206). Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone's dignity, depreciating his reputation or injuring his self-esteem, and is only applicable if the offense, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong. Injury has a penalty of fine from 3 to 7 months-fine, or from 6 to 14 months-fine when it's strong and with publicity. According to Article 216, an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge, determining the publication of the judicial decision (in a newspaper) at the expenses of the defamer.

Sweden

In Sweden, the criminal offense of denigration (''ärekränkning'') is regulated in Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Article 1 regulates defamation (''förtal'') and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as “having a reprehensible way of living”, or of providing information about him “intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others”. The penalty is a fine. It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue, it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.

Article 2 regulates gross defamation (''grovt förtal'') and has a penalty of up to 2 years in prison or a fine. In judging if the crime is gross, the court should consider whether the information, because of its content or the scope of its dissemination, is calculated to produce ”serious damage”. For example, if the it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths. Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2. Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someones parents as a way to bypass the law.

Article 3 regulates other insulting behavior (''förolämpning''), not characterized under Article 1 or 2 and is punishable with a fine or, if it's gross, with up to six months of prison or a fine. While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behavior.

Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration.

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the crime of "calumny" is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least 30 days-fine, according to Article 174-2 of the Swiss Criminal Code. There is calumny when the offender knows the falsity of his/her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one’s victim (see Articles 174-1 and 174-2).

On the other hand, "difamation" is punished only with a maximum fine of 180 days-fine (Article 173-1). When it comes to a deceased or absent person, there is a limitation to enforce the law up to 30 years (after the death).

United Kingdom

England and Wales

Modern libel and slander laws (as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations) in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been in full operation.

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

Criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912..

Scotland

In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions that base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defense of justification is "veritas".

South America

Argentina

In Argentina, the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter “Crimes Against Honor” (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit” (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive don’t constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).

He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to 3 years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd).

Brazil

In Brazil, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as “defamation” (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), “calumny” (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) and/or “injury” (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III). Incitation to hate and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like bullying or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of “illegal constraint” (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and “arbitrary exercise of discretion” (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a vigilante.

Chile

In Chile, the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation ''(injurias)'' are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution” (Article 412). If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages” when it refers to a crime, or “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it refers to a misdemeanor (Article 413). If it’s not written or with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 15 “vital wages” when it's about a crime, or plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it's about a misdemeanor (Article 414).

According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, “lower imprisonment” is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years. According to Article 30, the penalty of “lower imprisonment” in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.

Article 416 defines ''injuria'' as “all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt”. Article 417 defines broadly “''injurias graves''” (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. “Grave slander” in written form or with publicity are punished with “lower imprisonment” in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages”. Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and heirs of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander.

North America

Canada

As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In ''Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto'' (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the ''actual malice'' test adopted in the US case ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan''. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.

Criminal defamation

In Canada, the so-called « blasphemous libel» is a crime punished with a maximum term of two years in prison, according to Article 296-1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, as well as the crime of « defamatory libel » (Article 298), which receives the same penalty (see Article 301). In the specific case of a “libel known to be false” (Article 300), the prison term increases to a maximum of five years. According to Article 298, a defamatory libel “is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published”.

The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied. In the most recent case, in 1994 Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.

According to a OSCE official report on defamation laws, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted – 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was 1460 days of imprisonment.

United States

The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'', however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.

Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory ''per se'', such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

Record awards

The record libel verdict in the United States was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favor of MMAR Group Inc. $222.7 Million, whereas the record verdict rendered in favour of an individual was the award of $35.5 million against the Russian newspaper ''Izvestia'' in favor of entrepreneur Alex Konanykhin, who also won a $3 million judgment against ''Kommersant'', another Russian newspaper.

Defamation ''per se''

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable ''per se'' are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

Criminal defamation

At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 17 states and 2 territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books: Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes, § 18-13-105), Florida (Florida Statutes, § 836.01-836.11), Idaho (Idaho Code, § 18-4801-18-4809), Kansas (Kansas Statute Annotated, §21-4004), Louisiana (Louisiana R.S., 14:47), Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws, § 750.370), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes. § 609.765), Montana (Montana Code Annotated, § 13-35-234), New Hampshire (New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated, § 644:11), New Mexico (New Mexico Statute Annotated, §30-11-1), North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes, § 14-47), North Dakota (North Dakota Century Code, § 12.1-15-01), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 §§ 771-781), Utah (Utah Code Annotated, § 76-9-404), Virginia (Virginia Code Annotated, § 18.2-417), Washington (Washington Revised Code, 9.58.010), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes, § 942.01), Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, §§ 4101-4104) and Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, § 1172).

Mexico

Crimes of calumny, defamation and slanderous allegation ''(injurias)'' have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in 15 states. These crimes remain in the penal codes of 17 states, where penalty is, in average, from 1.1 years (for ones convicted for slanderous allegation) to 3.8 years in jail (for those convicted for calumny).

Oceania

Australia

Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in ''Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997)''.

Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of ''Gutnick v Dow Jones''. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates ''Gutnick v Dow Jones'' is ''Berezovsky v Forbes'' in England.

Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the ''Gutnick'' decision. On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, e.g., ''Defamation Act 2005'' (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.

The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with the condition that a public benefit existed.

Religious law

Related torts

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury", "intentional infliction of emotional distress", "outrageousness", or "convicium", involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract", and "negligent misrepresentation".

Criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition, false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions.

The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries.

See also

Alienation of affections

Crimen injuria

Criminal libel

Cyber defamation law

Defamation Act

Defamation of religion

Dignitary torts

Embarassment

False accusations

Group libel (see also Political libel)

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

Intentional torts

Invasion of privacy

Libel Act

Libel tourism

Malicious prosecution

Annie Oakley

Rumor

Shame

Small penis rule

Stereotype

Victimization

References

External links

Defamation Related Interesting Information: Slander, Libel, Comics Style Cases, etc.

Radio interview of Sue Scheff, co-author of Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the $11.3M Defamation Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet

Criminal-libel statutes, state by state - first amendment center's list of individual state criminal-libel statutes

Category:Communication of falsehoods Category:Abuse Category:Bullying Category:Crimes Category:Journalism ethics Category:Tort law

ca:Difamació cs:Pomluva cy:Enllib da:Injurie de:Diffamierung es:Difamación eo:Kalumnio fr:Diffamation ko:명예훼손 hr:Blaćenje id:Fitnah is:Ærumeiðingar it:Diffamazione (diritto italiano) he:לשון הרע kk:Диффамация lt:Difamacija mr:बदनामी nl:Laster ja:名誉毀損 pl:Zniesławienie pt:Difamação ru:Диффамация simple:Defamation fi:Kunnianloukkaus sv:Förtal uk:Дифамація yi:לשון הרע zh:诽谤

Birthname	Sarah Louise Heath
name	Sarah Palin
order1	9th
office1	Governor of Alaska
term start1	December 4, 2006
term end1	July 26, 2009
lieutenant1	Sean Parnell
predecessor1	Frank Murkowski
successor1	Sean Parnell
office2	Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
term start2	February 19, 2003
term end2	January 23, 2004
governor2	Frank Murkowski
predecessor2	Camille Oechsli Taylor
successor2	John K. Norman
office3	Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
term start3	October 14, 1996
term end3	October 14, 2002
predecessor3	John Stein
successor3	Dianne M. Keller
office4	Member of theWasilla City Council from Seat E
term start4	October 19, 1992
term end4	October 14, 1996
predecessor4	Dorothy Smith
successor4	Colleen Cottle
birth date	February 11, 1964
birth place	Sandpoint, Idaho, U.S.
Ethnicity	English, Irish and German
nationality	American
residence	Wasilla, Alaska
party	Republican
occupation	Local news sportscasterCommercial fishermanPolitician AuthorPolitical commentator
alma mater	University of Idaho - (B.S., 1987)
spouse	Todd Palin (m. August 29, 1988)
children	Track (b. 1989)Bristol (b. 1990)Willow (b. 1994)Piper (b. 2001)Trig (b. 2008)
religion	Non-denominational Christian
signature	Sarah palin signature.svg

Sarah Louise Palin (née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, commentator and author. As the Republican Party nominee for Vice President in the 2008 presidential election, she was the first Alaskan on the national ticket of a major party and first Republican woman nominated for the vice presidency. Her book ''Going Rogue'' has sold more than two million copies. Since January 2010, she has provided political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, ''Sarah Palin's Alaska''. Five million viewers tuned in for the first episode, a record for The Learning Channel.

She was elected to Wasilla City Council in 1992 and became mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2003, after an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor, she was appointed Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, responsible for overseeing the state's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency. The youngest person and first woman to be elected Governor of Alaska, Palin held the office from December 2006 until her resignation in July 2009. She has since endorsed and campaigned for the Tea Party movement, as well as several candidates in the 2010 midterm elections. From the time of her Vice Presidential nomination in 2008, Palin was considered a potential candidate for the 2012 presidential election until she announced in October 2011 that she would not run.

Early life and family

Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. She is the third of four children (three daughters, one son) born to Charles R. "Chuck" Heath, a science teacher and track and field coach, and Sarah "Sally" (née Sheeran), a school secretary. Palin's siblings are Chuck Jr., Heather, and Molly. Palin is of English, Irish, and German ancestry.

When Palin was a few months old, the family moved to Skagway, Alaska, where her father received his teaching job. They relocated to Eagle River in 1969; and finally settled to Wasilla in 1972.

Palin played flute in the junior high band, then attended Wasilla High School where she was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and a member of the girls' basketball and cross country running teams. During her senior year, she was co-captain and point guard of the basketball team that won the 1982 Alaska state championship, earning the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her competitive streak.

College

After graduating from high school, Palin enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Shortly after arriving in Hawaii, Palin transferred to Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu for a semester in the fall of 1982, and then to North Idaho College, a community college in Coeur d'Alene, for the spring and fall semesters of 1983. (In June 2008, the Alumni Association of NIC gave her its Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award.)

In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant. She finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant, playing flute in the talent portion of the contest, and receiving both the Miss Congeniality award and a college scholarship.

She attended the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, in late 1984 and early 1985, and Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska in late 1985. Palin returned to the University of Idaho in the spring of 1986, and received her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism in 1987.

Early career and marriage

After graduation, she worked as a sportscaster for KTUU-TV and KTVA-TV in Anchorage, and as a sports reporter for the ''Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman'', fulfilling an early ambition.

On August 29, 1988, she eloped with her high school sweetheart, Todd Palin. Following the birth of their first child, she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business.

Early political career

City council

Palin was elected to the Wasilla City Council in 1992 winning 530 votes to 310. Throughout her tenure on the city council and the rest of her political career, Palin has been a Republican since registering in 1982.

Mayor of Wasilla

Concerned that revenue from a new Wasilla sales tax would not be spent wisely, Palin ran for mayor of Wasilla in 1996, defeating incumbent mayor John Stein 651 to 440 votes. Her biographer described her campaign as targeting wasteful spending and high taxes; her opponent, Stein, said that Palin introduced abortion, gun rights, and term limits as campaign issues. The election was nonpartisan, though the state Republican Party ran advertisements for Palin. Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and won, 909 votes to 292. In 2002, she completed the second of the two consecutive three-year terms allowed by the city charter. She was elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors in 1999.

First term

Palin had a contretemps with the ''Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman'', a local newspaper, and became involved in personnel challenges and "a thwarted attempt to pack the City Council" during her first year in office. Using income generated by a 2% sales tax that had been approved by Wasilla voters in October 1992, Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. Using municipal bonds, she made improvements to the roads and sewers, and increased funding to the Police Department. She also oversaw new bike paths and procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. At the same time, she shrank the local museum's budget and deterred talk of a new library and city hall.

Soon after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from "city department heads who had been loyal to Stein," including the police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian. Palin stated this request was to find out their intentions and whether they supported her. She temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, saying that they first needed to become acquainted with her administration's policies. She created the position of city administrator, and reduced her own $68,000 salary by 10%, although by mid-1998 this was reversed by the city council.

In October 1996, Palin asked library director Mary Ellen Emmons if she would object to the removal of a book from the library if people were picketing to have the book removed. Emmons responded that she would, and others as well. Palin explained that she not been proposing censorship but had been discussing many issues with her staff that were "both rhetorical and realistic in nature." No attempt was made to remove books from the library during Palin's tenure as mayor.

Palin said she fired Police Chief Irl Stambaugh because he did not fully support her efforts to govern the city. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of his free speech rights. The judge dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, holding that the police chief served at the discretion of the mayor, and could be terminated for nearly any reason, even a political one, and ordered Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees.

Second term

During her second term as mayor, Palin proposed and promoted the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a 0.5% sales tax increase and $14.7  million bond issue. Voters approved the measure by a 20 vote margin and the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex (later named the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center) was built on time and under budget. However, the city spent an additional $1.3 million because of an eminent domain lawsuit caused by the failure to obtain clear title to the property before beginning construction. The city's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million due to $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects. ''The Wall Street Journal'' characterized the project as a "financial mess." A city council member defended the spending increases as being caused by the city's growth during that time.

Palin also joined with nearby communities in hiring the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for federal funds. The firm secured nearly $8 million in earmarks for the Wasilla city government, including $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, and $900,000 for sewer repairs.

In 2008, Wasilla's current mayor credited Palin's 75 percent property tax cuts and infrastructure improvements with bringing "big-box stores" and 50,000 shoppers per day to Wasilla.

State-level politics

In 2002, Palin ran for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, coming in second to Loren Leman in a five-way Republican primary. Following her defeat, she campaigned throughout the state for the nominated Republican governor-lieutenant governor ticket of Frank Murkowski and Leman. Murkowski and Leman won, Murkowski resigned from his long-held U.S. Senate seat in December 2002 to assume the governorship. Palin was said to be on the "short list" of possible appointees to Murkowski's U.S. Senate seat, but Murkowski ultimately appointed his daughter, State Representative Lisa Murkowski, as his successor in the Senate.

Governor Murkowski offered other jobs to Palin, and in February 2003, she accepted an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees Alaska's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency. While she had little background in the area, she said she wanted to learn more about the oil industry, and was named chair of the commission and ethics supervisor. By November 2003 she was filing non-public ethics complaints with the state attorney general and the governor against a fellow commission member, Randy Ruedrich, a former petroleum engineer and at the time the chair of the state Republican Party. He was forced to resign in November 2003. Palin resigned in January 2004 and put her protests against Ruedrich's "lack of ethics" into the public arena by filing a public complaint against Ruedrich, who was then fined $12,000. She also joined with Democratic legislator Eric Croft in complaining that Gregg Renkes, then the attorney general of Alaska, had a financial conflict of interest in negotiating a coal exporting trade agreement. Renkes also resigned his post.

From 2003 to June 2005, Palin served as one of three directors of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group designed to provide political training for Republican women in Alaska. In 2004, Palin told the ''Anchorage Daily News'' that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year against the Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said, "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?"

Governor of Alaska

In 2006, running on a clean-government platform, Palin defeated incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Her running mate was Sean Parnell, who since leaving the state senate in 2001 had worked as a corporate lobbyist.

In the November election, Palin was outspent but victorious, defeating former Democratic governor Tony Knowles by a margin of 48.3% to 40.9%. She became Alaska's first female governor, and, at the age of 42, the youngest governor in Alaskan history, the state's first governor to have been born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood, and the first not to be inaugurated in Juneau (she chose to have the ceremony held in Fairbanks instead). She took office on December 4, 2006, and for most of her term was very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 showed her with 93% and 89% popularity among all voters, which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America." A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%. A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskans was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.

Palin declared that top priorities of her administration would be resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development. She had championed ethics reform throughout her election campaign. Her first legislative action after taking office was to push for a bipartisan ethics reform bill. She signed the resulting legislation in July 2007, calling it a "first step", and declaring that she remained determined to clean up Alaska politics.

Palin frequently broke with the Alaskan Republican establishment. For example, she endorsed Parnell's bid to unseat the state's longtime at-large U.S. Representative, Don Young, and she publicly challenged then-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings. Shortly before his July 2008 indictment, she held a joint news conference with Stevens, described by ''The Washington Post'' as intended to "make clear she had not abandoned him politically."

Palin promoted the development of oil and natural-gas resources in Alaska, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Proposals to drill for oil in ANWR have occasioned national debate.

In 2006, Palin obtained a passport and in 2007 traveled for the first time outside of North America on a trip to Kuwait. There she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing at the Kuwait–Iraq border and met with members of the Alaska National Guard at several bases. On her return journey she visited injured soldiers in Germany.

Budget, spending, and federal funds

In June 2007, Palin signed a record $6.6 billion operating budget into law. At the same time, she used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the capital budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the capital budget to $1.6 billion.

In 2008, Palin vetoed $286 million, cutting or reducing funding for 350 projects from the FY09 capital budget.

Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet, a purchase made by the Murkowski administration for $2.7 million in 2005 against the wishes of the legislature. In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay, but the sale fell through, and the plane later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm.

Gubernatorial expenditures

Palin lived in Juneau during the legislative session and lived in Wasilla and worked out of offices in Anchorage the rest of the year. Since the office in Anchorage is 565 miles from Juneau, while she worked there, state officials said she was permitted to claim a $58 ''per diem'' travel allowance, which she took (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she did not, choosing instead to drive about 50 miles to her home in Wasilla. She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef. Republicans and Democrats have criticized Palin for taking the ''per diem'' and $43,490 in travel expenses for the times her family accompanied her on state business. In response, Palin's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, that her gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of Murkowski, her predecessor, and that "many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of 'state business' with the party extending the invitation." In February 2009, the State of Alaska, reversing a policy that had treated the payments as legitimate business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code, decided that per diems paid to state employees for stays in their own homes will be treated as taxable income and will be included in employees' gross income on their W-2 forms. Palin herself had ordered the review of the tax policy.

In December 2008, an Alaska state commission recommended increasing the Governor's annual salary from $125,000 to $150,000. Palin stated that she would not accept the pay raise. In response, the commission dropped the recommendation.

Federal funding

In her State of the State address on January 17, 2008, Palin declared that the people of Alaska "can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government [funding]." Alaska's federal congressional representatives cut back on pork-barrel project requests during Palin's time as governor; despite this, in 2008 Alaska was still the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmarks, requesting nearly $750 million in special federal spending over a period of two years.

While there is no state sales tax or income tax in Alaska, royalty revenues from the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field (comprised mostly of state-owned lands) have funded large state budgets since 1980, with the exact amounts largely dependent upon the prevailing price of petroleum. As a result, state revenues doubled to $10 billion in 2008. For the 2009 budget, Palin gave a list of 31 proposed federal earmarks or requests for funding, totaling $197 million, to Alaska's senior U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. Palin has stated that her decreasing support for federal funding was a source of friction between her and the state's congressional delegation; Palin requested less in federal funding each year than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.

Bridge to Nowhere

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that contained a $442-million earmark for constructing two Alaska bridges. The Gravina Island Bridge, intended to provide a link between the Ketchikan airport on Gravina Island and the city of Ketchikan at a cost of $233 million in Federal grant money, received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. As the island only has a population of 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere." The public furor led to Congress removing the earmarks, but retaining the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative." Palin criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents and urged speedy work on building the infrastructure "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

As governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to "inaccurate portrayals of the projects." Alaska did not return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.

In 2008, as a vice-presidential candidate, Palin characterized her position as having told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere." A number of Ketchikan residents said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community. Some critics said that her statement was misleading, as she had expressed support for the spending project and kept the federal money after the project was canceled. Palin was criticized for allowing construction of a 3-mile access road, built with $25 million in federal transportation funds set aside as part of the original bridge project, to continue. A spokesman for Alaska's Department of Transportation said that it was within Palin's power to cancel the road project, but noted that the state was still considering cheaper designs to complete the bridge project, and that in any case, the road would open up the surrounding lands for development.

Gas pipeline

In August 2008, Palin signed a bill authorizing the State of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines — the sole bidder to meet the state's requirements — a license to build and operate a pipeline to transport natural gas from the Alaska North Slope to the continental United States through Canada. The governor also pledged $500 million in seed money to support the project. It is estimated that the project will cost $26 billion. ''Newsweek'' described the project as "the principal achievement of Sarah Palin's term as Alaska's governor." The pipeline faces legal challenges from Canadian First Nations.

Predator control

In 2007, Palin supported a 2003 Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from the air as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose and caribou populations for subsistence-food gatherers and other hunters. In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs, in five areas of Alaska. 607 wolves had been killed in the prior four years. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves to be killed by the end of the predator-control season in April 2007. Wildlife activists sued the state, and a state judge declared the bounty illegal on the basis that a bounty would have to be offered by the Board of Game and not by the Department of Fish and Game. On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program.

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan on July 11, 2008, citing performance-related issues, such as not being "a team player on budgeting issues" and "egregious rogue behavior." Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said that the "last straw" was Monegan's planned trip to Washington, D.C., to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved. Monegan said that he had resisted persistent pressure from Palin, her husband, and her staff, including state Attorney General Talis J. Colberg, to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten; Wooten was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister after a bitter divorce that included an alleged death threat against Palin's father. At one point Sarah and Todd Palin hired a private investigator to gather information, seeking to have Wooten officially disciplined. Monegan stated that he learned an internal investigation had found all but two of the allegations to be unsubstantiated, and Wooten had been disciplined for the others — an illegal moose killing and the tasering of his 11-year-old stepson, who had reportedly asked to be tasered. He told the Palins that there was nothing he could do because the matter was closed. When contacted by the press for comment, Monegan first acknowledged pressure to fire Wooten but said that he could not be certain that his own firing was connected to that issue; he later asserted that the dispute over Wooten was a major reason for his firing. Palin stated on July 17 that Monegan was not pressured to fire Wooten, nor dismissed for not doing so.

Monegan said the subject of Wooten came up when he invited Palin to a birthday party for his cousin, state senator Lyman Hoffman, in February 2007 during the legislative session in Juneau. "As we were walking down the stairs in the capitol building she wanted to talk to me about her former brother-in-law," Monegan said. "I said, 'Ma'am, I need to keep you at arm's length with this. I can't deal about him with you. She said, 'OK, that's a good idea.'"

Palin said there was "absolutely no pressure ever put on Commissioner Monegan to hire or fire anybody, at any time. I did not abuse my office powers. And I don't know how to be more blunt and candid and honest, but to tell you that truth. To tell you that no pressure was ever put on anybody to fire anybody." Todd Palin gave a similar account.

On August 13 she acknowledged that a half dozen members of her administration had made more than two dozen calls on the matter to various state officials. "I do now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it," she said. Palin said, "Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction."

Chuck Kopp, whom Palin had appointed to replace Monegan as public safety commissioner, received a $10,000 state severance package after he resigned following just two weeks on the job. Kopp, the former Kenai chief of police, resigned July 25 following disclosure of a 2005 sexual harassment complaint and letter of reprimand against him. Monegan said that he did not receive a severance package from the state.

Legislative investigation

On August 1, 2008, the Alaska Legislature hired an investigator, Stephen Branchflower, to review the Monegan dismissal. Legislators stated that Palin had the legal authority to fire Monegan, but they wanted to know whether her action had been motivated by anger at Monegan for not firing Wooten. The atmosphere was bipartisan and Palin pledged to cooperate. Wooten remained employed as a state trooper. She placed an aide on paid leave due to a tape-recorded phone conversation that she deemed improper, in which the aide, appearing to act on her behalf, complained to a trooper that Wooten had not been fired.

Several weeks after the start of what the media referred to as "troopergate," Palin was chosen as John McCain's running mate. On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues. The Personnel Board's three members were first appointed by Palin’s predecessor, and Palin reappointed one member in 2008. On September 19, Todd Palin and several state employees refused to honor subpoenas, the validity of which were disputed by Talis Colberg, Palin's appointee as Alaska's Attorney General. On October 2, a court rejected Colberg's challenge to the subpoenas, and seven of the witnesses, not including Todd Palin, eventually testified.

Branchflower Report

On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing, the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law." One of Palin's attorneys, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo." Later that day, Palin did a conference call interview with various Alaskan reporters, where she stated, "Well, I’m very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing... Any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that."

Alaska Personnel Board investigation and report

The bipartisan State of Alaska Personnel Board reviewed the matter at Palin's request. On September 15, the Anchorage law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness filed arguments of "no probable cause" with the Personnel Board on behalf of Palin. The Personnel Board retained independent counsel Timothy Petumenos, a Democrat, as an investigator. On October 24, Palin gave three hours of depositions with the Personnel Board in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, 2008, the State of Alaska Personnel Board reported that there was no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official had violated state ethical standards. The report further stated that the Branchflower Report used the wrong statute in reaching its conclusions, misconstrued the available evidence and did not consider or obtain all of the material evidence required to properly reach findings in the matter.

Job approval ratings, with comparisons

As governor of Alaska, Palin's job approval rating ranged from a high of 93% in May 2007 to 54% in May 2009. In November 2006, the month before Palin took office, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski’s job approval rating was 19%.

! Date	! Approval	! Disapproval	! Pollster
May 15, 2007	93%	''Not reported''	Dittman Research
May 30, 2007	89%	''Not reported''	Ivan Moore Research
October 19–21, 2007	83%	11%	Ivan Moore Research
April 10, 2008	73%	7%	Rasmussen Reports
May 17, 2008	69%	9%	Rasmussen Reports
July 24–25, 2008	80%	''Not reported''	Hays Research Group
July 30, 2008	64%	14%	Rasmussen Reports
September 20–22, 2008	68%	''Not reported''	Ivan Moore Research
October 7, 2008	63%	37%	Rasmussen Reports
March 24–25, 2009	59.8%	34.9%	Hays Research
May 4–5, 2009	54%	41.6%	Hays Research
June 14–18, 2009	56%	35%	Global Strategy Group

In April 2009, SurveyUSA reported job approval ratings for the following U.S. governors: Bob Riley (AL) 54%, Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA) 25%, Chet Culver (IA) 42%, Kathleen Sebelius (KS) 46%, Steve Beshear (KY) 47%, Tim Pawlenty (MN) 46%, Jay Nixon (MO) 56%, Bill Richardson (NM) 46%, David Paterson (NY) 25%, Ted Kulongoski (OR) 40%, Tim Kaine (VA) 50%, Christine Gregoire (WA) 40%, and Jim Doyle (WI) 35%. (Polls taken April 24–26, 2009).

Resignation

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced that she would not run for re-election in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. In her announcement, Palin stated that both she and the state had been expending an "insane" amount of time and money ($2.5 million) to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her, and that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck governor. A Palin aide said Palin was "no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself." Palin and her husband Todd had personally incurred more than $500,000 in legal fees defending against ethics charges brought against her as governor. Palin transferred the office of governor to Sean Parnell in Fairbanks on July 26, 2009.

In December 2010, new rules governing Alaska executive branch ethics, stemming from Sarah Palin's tenure as governor, took effect. "These include allowing for the state to pay legal costs for officials cleared of ethics violations; (and) allowing for a family member of the governor or lieutenant governor to travel at state cost in certain circumstances . . ."

2008 vice-presidential campaign

Several conservative commentators met Palin in the summer of 2007. Some of them, such as Bill Kristol, later urged McCain to pick Palin as his vice presidential running mate, arguing that her presence on the ticket would provide a boost in enthusiasm among the Religious Right wing of the Republican party, while her status as an unknown on the national scene would also be a positive factor.

On August 24, 2008, during a general strategy meeting, Steve Schmidt, and a few other senior advisers to the McCain Campaign, discussed potential vice presidential picks with the consensus settling around Palin. The following day, the strategists advised McCain of their conclusions and he personally called Palin, who was at the Alaska State Fair.

On August 27, she visited McCain's vacation home near Sedona, Arizona, where she was offered the position of vice-presidential candidate. According to Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for McCain, he had previously met Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February 2008 and had come away "extraordinarily impressed." Palin was the only prospective running mate who had a face-to-face interview with McCain to discuss joining the ticket that week. Nonetheless, Palin's selection was a surprise to many because a main criticism he had of Obama was his lack of experience, and speculation had centered on other candidates, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. On August 29, in Dayton, Ohio, McCain announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate.

Palin was the first Alaskan and the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket.

Since Palin was largely unknown outside Alaska before her selection by McCain, her personal life, policy positions, and political record drew intense media scrutiny. On September 1, 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was pregnant and that she would marry the father, Levi Johnston. During this period, some Republicans felt that Palin was being unfairly attacked by the media. Timothy Noah of ''Slate'' magazine predicted that Palin's acceptance speech would be "wildly overpraised" and might end speculation that she was unqualified for the job of vice president because the press had been beating her up for "various trivial shortcomings" and had lowered the expectations for her speech. On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40-minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received and watched by more than 40 million people. A Rasmussen poll taken immediately after the Convention found that 51% of Americans believed that the media was "trying to hurt" Palin with negative coverage, and 40% believed Palin to be ready for the Presidency.

During the campaign, controversy erupted over alleged differences between Palin's positions as a gubernatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. After McCain announced Palin as his running mate, ''Newsweek'' and ''Time'' put Palin on their magazine covers, as some of the media alleged that McCain's campaign was restricting press access to Palin by allowing only three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her. Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews. Her interview five days later with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity went more smoothly and focused on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview. Palin's performance in her third interview with Katie Couric, of CBS News, was widely criticized; her poll numbers declined, Republicans expressed concern that she was becoming a political liability, and some conservative commentators called for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket. Other conservatives remained ardent in their support for Palin, accusing the columnists of elitism. Following this interview, some Republicans, including Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press.

Palin reportedly prepared intensively for the October 2 vice-presidential debate with Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden at Washington University in St. Louis. Some Republicans suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews would improve public perceptions of her debate performance by lowering expectations. Polling from CNN, Fox and CBS found that while Palin exceeded most voters' expectations, they felt that Biden had won the debate.

Upon returning to the campaign trail after her debate preparation, Palin stepped up her attacks on the Democratic candidate for President, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a fundraising event, Palin explained her new aggressiveness, saying, "There does come a time when you have to take the gloves off and that time is right now." Palin said that her first amendment right to "call Obama out on his associations" was threatened by "attacks by the mainstream media."

Palin appeared on ''Saturday Night Live''s "Weekend Update" segment on October 18. Prior to her appearance, she had been parodied several times by Tina Fey, who was noted for her physical resemblance to the candidate. In the weeks leading up to the election, Palin was also the subject of amateur parodies posted on YouTube.

Controversy arose after it was reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) spent $150,000 of campaign contributions on clothing, hair styling, and makeup for Palin and her family in September 2008. Campaign spokespersons stated the clothing would be going to charity after the election. Palin and some media outlets blamed gender bias for the controversy. At the end of the campaign, Palin returned the clothes to the RNC.

The election took place on November 4, and Obama was projected as the winner at 11:00 PM EST. In his concession speech McCain thanked Palin, calling her "one of the best campaigners I've ever seen, and an impressive new voice in our party for reform and the principles that have always been our greatest strength." While aides were preparing the teleprompter for McCain's speech, they found a concession speech written for Palin by George W. Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. Two members of McCain's staff, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, told Palin that there was no tradition of Election Night speeches by running mates, and that she would not be speaking. Palin appealed to McCain, who agreed with his staff.

After the 2008 election

Palin was the first guest on commentator Glenn Beck's Fox News television show on January 19, 2009, commenting on Barack Obama that he would be her president and that she would assist in any way to bring progress to the nation without abandoning her conservative views.

On January 27, 2009, Palin formed the political action committee, SarahPAC. The organization, which describes itself as an advocate of energy independence, supports candidates for federal and state office. Following her resignation as Governor, Palin announced her intention to campaign "on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation." It was reported that SarahPAC had raised nearly $1,000,000. A legal defense fund was set up to help Palin challenge ethics complaints, and it had collected approximately $250,000 by mid-July 2009. In June 2010, Palin's defense fund was ruled illegal and will have to pay back $386,856 it collected in donations because it used Palin's position as governor to raise money for her personal gain. Palin subsequently set up a new defense fund.

In March 2010, Palin started a show to be aired on TLC called ''Sarah Palin's Alaska''. The show was produced by Mark Bennett. Five million viewers tuned in for the premiere episode, a record for TLC. Palin also has secured a segment on Fox News. Two guests that she was shown to have interviewed claimed to have never met her. Guests LL Cool J and Toby Keith stated that footage shown on the segment was actually taken from another interview with someone else, but was used in Palin's segment.

On December 8, 2010, it was reported that SarahPAC and Palin's personal credit card information were compromised through cyber attacks. Palin's team believed the attack was executed by Anonymous during Operation Payback. The report was met with skepticism in the blogosphere. Palin's email had been hacked once before in 2008.

In August 2009, she coined the phrase "death panel", to describe health care reform. She stated that it would require Americans such as her parents or her child with Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." The phrase was criticized by many on both sides of the political aisle and Politifact named it the "Lie of the Year of 2009"

''Going Rogue'' and ''America by Heart''

In November 2009, Palin released her memoir, ''Going Rogue: An American Life'', in which she details her private and political career, including her resignation as Governor of Alaska. Palin said she took the title from the phrase 'gone rogue' used by McCain staffers to describe her behavior when she spoke her mind on the issues during the campaign. The subtitle, "An American Life," mirrors the title of President Ronald Reagan's 1990 autobiography. Less than two weeks after its release, sales of the book exceeded the one million mark, with 300,000 copies sold the first day. Its bestseller rankings were comparable to memoirs by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Palin traveled to 11 states in a bus, with her family accompanying her, to promote the book. She made a number of media appearances as well, including a widely publicized interview on November 16, 2009, with Oprah Winfrey. In November 2010 HarperCollins released Palin's second book, titled ''America by Heart''. The book contains excerpts from Palin's favorite speeches, sermons and literature as well as portraits of people Palin admires, including some she met in rural America on her first book tour.

Tea Party movement

left|thumb|upright|Sarah Palin addressing a Labor Day rally sponsored by the Tea Party Express ([[Manchester, New Hampshire|Manchester, NH), September 5, 2011]] On February 6, 2010, Palin appeared as the keynote speaker at the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Palin said the Tea Party movement is "the future of politics in America." She criticized Obama for rising deficits, and for "apologizing for America” in speeches in other countries. Palin said Obama was weak on the War on Terror for allowing the so-called Christmas bomber to board a plane headed for the United States. Palin’s speaking fee was reported to be $100,000. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, the social networking site that sponsored the convention, did not confirm the amount paid to Palin saying he was contractually obligated not to speak about it.

On Labor Day, September 5, 2011, Palin was the featured speaker at a Tea Party Express rally in Manchester, New Hampshire's Victory Park. New Hampshire is traditionally the host of the nation's first Presidential primary. She addressed an enthusiastic crowd that the ''Los Angeles Times'' estimated to number 1,000 but which the local ''New Hampshire Union-Leader'' newspaper reported as "at least 500". Many in the crowd chanted "Run, Sarah, run!" during her speech.

Palin told the rally attendees that it was time to grow the Tea Party movement and it was important for them to avoid internal bickering with Establishment Republicans. She told the crowd, “The Tea Party movement is bigger than any one person and is not about any one candidate.”

"Pink Elephant" movement and 2010 endorsements

In the middle of 2010, Palin flagged the launch of a new "Pink Elephant Movement." She set about endorsing a number of female GOP candidates. Her endorsement helped Georgia Gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel to take the lead in the campaign for the Republican nomination, though ultimately Handel lost the primary. Palin has endorsed several female candidates nationally. Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the House Democratic campaign operation has called her involvement in various U.S. House campaigns a "great thing across the board." She spoke at a May 2010 fundraiser for the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life political advocacy group and political action committee that supports pro-life women in politics, in which she coined the term "mama grizzly."

In the months ahead of the November 2010 elections, Palin selectively endorsed Republican candidates, and was a significant fundraising asset to those she campaigned for during the primary season. According to ''Politico'', Palin's criteria for endorsing candidates was whether they had the support of the Tea Party movement and the support of the Susan B. Anthony List. In terms of success, Palin was 7-2 for Senate endorsements; 7-6 for House endorsements; and 6-3 in endorsements of gubernatorial candidates Palin's endorsement of Joe Miller in the August 24 Alaska primary election for U.S. Senator was identified as a possible pivotal moment in Miller's upset of the incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. According to Daily Beast reporter Shushannah Walshe, Christine O'Donnell's prospects of upsetting establishment Republican candidate Mike Castle "changed overnight" due to Palin's endorsement. O'Donnell defeated Castle in the September 14 primary for Joe Biden's former Senate seat in Delaware. Her O'Donnell endorsement further increased tensions between Palin and the Republican establishment: leading conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer described the endorsement as "reckless and irresponsible"; party strategist Karl Rove argued that her endorsement may have cost the GOP the Delaware Senate seat; and commentators including Politico's Ben Smith posited that Palin's support of O'Donnell contributed to dashing Republican hopes of regaining control of the U.S. Senate. Palin's influence over the primaries nonetheless further increased speculation that she would seek to be the party's nominee for President in 2012, with political pundits Paul Mirengoff, David Frum, and Jonathan Chait identifying Palin as the front-runner.

Possible 2012 presidential and Senate campaign

Beginning in November 2008, following Palin's high profile in the presidential campaign, there was an active "Draft Palin" movement. On February 6, 2010, when Fox News asked her if she would be running for president in 2012, she replied, "I would be willing to if I believe that it's right for the country." She added, "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

In November 2010, Palin confirmed that she was considering running for the Presidency, and was "having that discussion with my family." She stated she realised her level of experience could cause problems with winning the nomination, and criticized the "lamestream media" for focusing attention on her personal life.

During March 2011, Palin and her husband toured India at the invitation of Indian newsmagazine ''India Today'', subsequently visiting Israel. During the tour she was quizzed about her future candidacy, she said "I don't think there needs to be a rush to get out there as a declared candidate. It's a life-changing decision". In response to another question, she said "It’s time that a woman is president of the United States of America."

Palin has since denied that she is running for Senate and said that her recent purchase of a home in Scottsdale was not a full-time residence.

On October 5, 2011, Palin stated that she had decided not to seek the Republican nomination for President.

Personal life

Palin family members at the announcement of her vice-presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left to right: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol and Trig.|thumb|left

Sarah and Todd Palin have five children: sons Track (born 1989) and Trig Paxson Van (born 2008), and daughters Bristol Sheeran Marie (born 1990), Willow (born 1994), and Piper (born 2001). Palin's youngest child, Trig, was prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Palin has two grandchildren, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter, Bristol, and her then-fiancee, Levi Johnston, in 2008, and a girl named Kyla Grace Palin, who was born to son Track and his wife, Britta, in 2011. Her husband Todd worked for the British oil company BP as an oil-field production operator, retiring in 2009, and owns a commercial fishing business.

Palin was born into a Roman Catholic family. Later, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church, which she attended until 2002. Palin then switched to the Wasilla Bible Church. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center. Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing Christian."

Political positions

Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982.

Health care

Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy, which she described using the term "death panels". This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Palin characterizes the act as an "unfunded mandate" and supports defunding it, as well as repealing portions of the act.

Social Issues

Palin opposes same-sex marriage, abortion including in cases of rape and incest, and embryonic stem cell research. She supports capital punishment, and parental consent for female minors seeking an abortion. She has called marijuana use a "minimal issue" and suggested that arresting pot-smokers should be a low priority for local police, though she opposes legalizing the substance.

Education

Palin supports sex education in public schools that encourage abstinence along with teaching about contraception. She supports discussion of creationism during lessons on evolution in public schools. Palin believes evolution "should be taught as an accepted principle" and said that her belief in God's role in Earth's creation "is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught in science class."

Guns

A Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Palin interprets the Second Amendment as including the right to handgun possession and opposes bans on semi-automatic assault weapons. She supports gun safety education for youth.

Environment

Palin supports off-shore drilling, and land-based drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When commenting on the Gulf Coast oil disaster Palin said, "I repeat the slogan 'drill here, drill now. She said, "I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry." Palin asked supporters to read an article by Thomas Sowell that criticized Obama for having BP pay to an escrow fund. Palin has expressed skepticism about the causes of global warming, but agrees that "man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue" and that action should be taken. She is opposed to cap-and-trade proposals, such as the defunct American Clean Energy and Security Act. Palin has acknowledged that "Simply waiting for low-carbon-emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals..that will be required [for carbon dioxide] under most credible climate-change models."

Foreign policy

Palin is a strong supporter of Israel. Referring to Iran's threat to Israel, Palin said Obama would be reelected if "he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do." On foreign policy, Palin supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place." Palin supports preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat, and supports U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Palin supports NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO member, the United States should meet its treaty obligations. On foreign policy, Palin supported the surge strategy in Iraq, the use of additional ground forces in Afghanistan, and, in general, maintaining a strong defensive posture by increasing the defense budget. She believes Islam and democracy can co-exist. She supports strengthening America's alliance with Japan. She supports the de-nuclearization of North Korea. She wants to work with China to reduce American debt and improve the human rights and political freedom of Chinese citizens.

Public image

Prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention, a Gallup poll found that most voters were unfamiliar with Sarah Palin. During her campaign to become vice president, 39% said Palin was ready to serve as president if needed, 33% said Palin was not, and 29% had no opinion. This was "the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988." Following the Convention, her image came under close media scrutiny, particularly with regard to her religious perspective on public life, her socially conservative views, and her perceived lack of experience. Palin's experience in foreign and domestic politics came under criticism among conservatives as well as liberals following her nomination. At the same time, Palin became more popular than John McCain among Republicans.

One month after McCain announced Palin as his running mate, she was viewed both more favorably and unfavorably among voters than her opponent, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. A plurality of the television audience rated Biden's performance higher at the 2008 vice-presidential debate. Media outlets repeated Palin's statement that she "stood up to Big Oil" when she resigned after eleven months as the head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, due to abuses she witnessed involving other Republican commissioners and their ties to energy companies and energy lobbyists, and again when she raised taxes on oil companies as governor. In turn, others have said that Palin is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her advocacy of oil exploration and development including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the de-listing of the polar bear as an endangered species. The National Organization for Women did not endorse McCain/Palin, endorsing Barack Obama instead.

Palin was selected as one of America’s "10 Most Fascinating People of 2008" by Barbara Walters for an ABC special on December 4, 2008. In April 2010, she was selected as one of the world's 100 most influential people by ''TIME Magazine''.

In the wake of the January 8, 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Palin faced criticism for her SarahPAC website's inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin responded to the criticism of the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially equating the accusations of her role in the shooting to a "blood libel". Following her response, an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that 46% of respondents viewed Palin's actions after the shooting unfavorably, while 30% approved and 24% had no opinion.

Bibliography

''Going Rogue: An American Life'' (2009)

''America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag'' (2010)

References

External links

SarahPAC (Sarah Palin Political Action Committee) (Official)

(Official) (Official)

Ongoing news and commentary from the ''Anchorage Daily News''

Favorable Rating: Sarah Palin at ''Pollster''

Sarah Palin rumor control at Snopes.com

Sarah Palin at FactCheck.org

NOW: Meet Sarah Palin video from ''PBS''

Sarah Palin : Sarah Palin News and Photos Search ChicagoTribune.com

Charlie Gibson Interviews GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin from ''ABC News'', September 2008

One-On-One with Sarah Palin transcripts and videos from ''CBS News'' with Katie Couric, September 2008

Category:1964 births Category:21st-century women writers Category:Alaska city council members Category:Alaska Republicans Category:American broadcast news analysts Category:American evangelicals Category:American fishers Category:American people of English descent Category:American political pundits Category:American political writers Category:American people of German descent Category:American people of Irish descent Category:American television sports announcers Category:American women mayors Category:American women state governors Category:American women writers Category:American writers of German descent Category:American writers of Irish descent Category:American beauty pageant winners Category:Conservatism in the United States Category:Converts to evangelical Christianity from Roman Catholicism Category:Female United States vice-presidential candidates Category:Fox News Channel people Category:Governors of Alaska Category:Living people Category:Mayors of Wasilla, Alaska Category:National Rifle Association members Category:Palin family Category:People from Sandpoint, Idaho Category:People from Wasilla, Alaska Category:Republican Party state governors of the United States Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees Category:State cabinet secretaries of Alaska Category:Tea Party movement Category:United States vice-presidential candidates, 2008 Category:University of Hawaii at Hilo alumni Category:University of Idaho alumni Category:Women in Alaska politics Category:Writers from Alaska Category:Writers from Idaho

ar:سارة بالين az:Sara Peylin bn:সারাহ প্যালিন be:Сара Луіз Пейлін be-x-old:Сара Луіз Пэйлін bcl:Sarah Palin bg:Сара Пейлин bs:Sarah Palin br:Sarah Palin ca:Sarah Palin cs:Sarah Palinová da:Sarah Palin de:Sarah Palin dv:ސާރާ ޕޭލިން et:Sarah Palin es:Sarah Palin eo:Sarah Palin eu:Sarah Palin fa:سارا پیلین fo:Sarah Palin fr:Sarah Palin ga:Sarah Palin gv:Sarah Palin gl:Sarah Palin ko:세라 페일린 hi:सारा पॉलिन hr:Sarah Palin id:Sarah Palin is:Sarah Palin it:Sarah Palin he:שרה פיילין kn:ಸಾರಾ ಪಾಲಿನ್ ka:სარა პეილინი la:Sarah Palin lv:Sāra Peilina lt:Sarah Palin hu:Sarah Palin mr:सॅरा पेलिन arz:ساره بالين nl:Sarah Palin ja:サラ・ペイリン no:Sarah Palin nn:Sarah Palin uz:Sarah Palin nds:Sarah Palin pl:Sarah Palin pt:Sarah Palin ksh:Sarah Palin ro:Sarah Palin ru:Пэйлин, Сара Луиза sq:Sarah Palin simple:Sarah Palin sk:Sarah Palinová sr:Сара Пејлин sh:Sarah Palin fi:Sarah Palin sv:Sarah Palin tl:Sarah Palin ta:சேரா பேலின் th:แซราห์ เพลิน tr:Sarah Palin uk:Сара Пейлін vi:Sarah Palin wuu:些拉 班琳 yi:סארא פעלין zh-yue:佩琳 zh:莎拉·佩林

name	Jared Lee Loughner
birth date	September 10, 1988
nationality	American
residence	Tucson, Arizona
education	Mountain View High School (dropped out)Pima Community College (withdrew)
known for	2011 Tucson shooting
criminal charge
criminal status
footnotes	}}

Jared Lee Loughner (; born September 10, 1988) is an American man who is charged with the January 8, 2011 Tucson, Arizona shooting that killed six people, including a nine-year-old girl (Christina Taylor Green) and the Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. The shooting also left 14 others injured, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He has been indicted on 49 counts by federal grand juries in Arizona.

Personal background

Loughner is the only child of Randy and Amy Loughner. They are described by a neighbor as a very private family. He attended Mountain View High School, and dropped out in 2006. Around this time those who knew him noted a change in his personality. Kelsey Hawkes, who dated Loughner for several months in high school, said she could not believe it was him after hearing of Loughner's arrest. "I've always known him as the sweet, caring Jared", said Hawkes, 21, a student at the University of Arizona. While Loughner had friends in high school, neighbors noted that in the years following he would keep to himself and not respond to others. Zach Osler, another high school classmate of Loughner's, and his closest friend, indicated that Loughner's life began to unravel after his high school girlfriend broke up with him, and he began to abuse alcohol and drugs, specifically Salvia divinorum, a natural and legal hallucinogen. Another longtime friend, Kylie Smith, added that he had used cannabis (marijuana), psychedelic mushrooms, and LSD around that time as well.

At some point, Loughner was fired from his job at a Quiznos restaurant, with his manager saying he underwent a personality transformation. After this, Loughner briefly volunteered at a local animal shelter, walking dogs, but he was asked not to return; the shelter manager later said, "He was walking dogs in an area we didn't want dogs walked... He didn't understand or comprehend what the supervisor was trying to tell him. He was just resistant to that information." From February to September 2010, Loughner had five contacts with Pima Community College police for classroom and library disruptions. On September 29, 2010, college police discovered a YouTube video shot by Loughner, in which his spoken commentary stated that the college was illegal according to the United States Constitution. The college told Loughner that if he wanted to come back to school, he needed to resolve his Code of Conduct violations and obtain a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, that his presence did not constitute a danger to himself or others. On October 4, Loughner and his parents met with campus administrators and Loughner indicated he would withdraw from the college. During Loughner's time at Pima, a teacher and a classmate both said they thought he might commit a school shooting.

According to court records, Loughner had two previous offenses. In October 2007, he was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia from September 10, 2007, which was dismissed after he completed a diversion program. On October 13, 2008 he was charged after defacing a street sign in Marana, near Tucson. That charge was also dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009. The U.S. Army confirmed that Loughner had been rejected as "unqualified" from the service in 2008. According to military sources, Loughner admitted to marijuana use on numerous occasions during the application process. Loughner quit using marijuana (as well as alcohol and tobacco) in late 2008 and did not use it since, according to one of his longtime friends. Dr. Laura Nelson, deputy Director for Behavioral Health at the Arizona Department of Health Services, said the state has no record of Loughner seeking mental health treatment in the public system.

Views

In the initial aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, many speculated that Loughner's political views had been fueled by extremist rhetoric. Records show that Loughner was registered as an independent voter and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010. A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. Loughner had also posted a video on YouTube in which he described his school, Pima Community College, as "one of the biggest scams in America". This video led to Loughner being suspended from the school. One classmate stated that Loughner had laughed at a young woman and likened her to a terrorist after she read a poem about getting an abortion. They also recall Loughner as an atheist and a nihilist. An old friend, Bryce Tierney, discussed several of Loughner's views. According to him, Loughner had exhibited a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords, a Blue Dog Democrat, and he repeatedly derided her as a "fake". This grudge intensified when he attended her August 25, 2007, event and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?" Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event. An envelope in the same box as the letter was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made." Loughner was known to believe, and to say, that women should not hold positions of power. Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, disputed speculation by media commentators that Loughner's actions were fueled by partisan politics and rhetoric, insisting, "He did not watch TV, he disliked the news, he didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the Left, he wasn't on the Right," and instead conspiracy theories had a profound effect on him. Another friend, Zane Gutierrez, later told the ''New York Times'' that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."

Loughner believed in numerous conspiracy theories and espoused views such as: the United States Government was responsible for the September 11 attacks; a New World Order would bring about a one world currency; there would be a 2012 apocalypse; NASA had faked spaceflights; and the government was using mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar. He was a member of the message board ''Above Top Secret'' though members of the site did not respond warmly to his posts. Reports appearing after the shooting noted similarities between the statements made by Loughner concerning grammar and mind control and the views of conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller. Miller stated, "He's just repeating things I've had up on my site the past 11 years." According to Zach Osler, the online conspiracy theory film ''Zeitgeist: The Movie'' affected Loughner's view of the world. Loughner believed that most people in the country are brainwashed and are unaware that nothing is real. Loughner became obsessed with controlling what he perceived to be lucid dreams.

Tucson shooting

Loughner allegedly purchased the 9mm Glock pistol used in the shooting from a Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson on November 30, 2010. The night before the shooting, he left a message on a friend's voicemail saying, "Hey man, it's Jared. Me and you had good times. Peace out. Later." In a MySpace post the morning of the shooting at 4:12 am, he wrote, "Goodbye friends. Please don't be mad at me. The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven't talked to one person who is literate. I want to make it out alive. The longest war in the history of the United States. Goodbye. I'm saddened with the current currency and job employment. I had a bully at school. Thank you. P.S. --plead the fifth!" Photos on the MySpace page showed a close-up picture of a handgun sitting atop a document titled "United States History."

At 7:04 am MST (UTC-7), Loughner went to a Walmart store in the Foothills Mall to purchase ammunition but left the store and completed his purchase at a Walmart on North Cortaro Road at 7:28 am. He was stopped by an Arizona Game and Fish Department officer at 7:34 am MST (UTC-7) for running a red light, but once the officer determined there were no outstanding warrants for Loughner, he was allowed to proceed to his destination with a warning to drive carefully. He then took a taxi to a Safeway supermarket location in Casas Adobes, where Giffords was holding a constituents meeting. The shooting occurred on January 8, 2011, at 10:10 am MST (UTC-7). Loughner allegedly opened fire on Giffords as well as numerous bystanders, killing six people. Thirteen other people were injured by gunfire, and one person was injured while fleeing the scene of the shooting. Giffords, the apparent target of the attack, was shot in the head and left in critical condition.

Arrest

Loughner was subdued by bystanders and was arrested by police, saying, "I plead the Fifth," as he was taken into custody. A photograph taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Office's forensic unit was released to the media on January 10, 2011 and published on front pages nationwide. The ''Washington Post'' described the picture as "smirking and creepy, with hollow eyes ablaze," while the art director for the ''New York Times'' stated it was placed on the front page because it "was the picture of the day [...] it was intense and arresting. It invited you to look and study, and wonder."

Legal proceedings

Loughner was charged in federal court with one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of murder of a federal employee (including federal judge John Roll), and two counts of attempting to murder a federal employee. He was indicted on three of the charges on January 19, 2011. Loughner was being held without bail in the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix, kept isolated in his cell away from other inmates 23 hours a day and allowed out for one hour to shower and exercise. On February 24, 2011 he was transferred to the United States Penitentiary (USP) Tucson.

Attorney Judy Clarke, a former federal public defender who has represented suspects in several high profile murder and terrorism cases, has been appointed to represent Loughner in federal court. The entire federal judiciary of the state of Arizona recused themselves from hearing the case because of their ties to fellow judge John Roll, who was killed in the attack. At the direction of Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, the federal case will be heard by San Diego-based Judge Larry Alan Burns from the Southern District of California. Federal prosecutors have opposed motions to move the case outside of Arizona because of pre-trial publicity; the decision will be made by incoming Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver, who succeeded Roll in the federal district of Arizona.

Prosecutors representing Arizona, which has concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, have announced they intend to file murder and attempted murder charges on behalf of the other victims, those who were not members of Congress or federal employees, although they could legally file charges on behalf of all victims. Arizona state prosecutors normally have ten days from the time a suspect is brought into custody to file charges, but time spent in federal custody does not count towards this limitation. Arizona law does not permit a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, but does allow for a verdict of guilty but insane.

On January 24, 2011, Loughner appeared at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, before Judge Burns from San Diego. Loughner, whose hair had partially regrown since his arrest, smiled while presented with the charges related to the shooting, including the attempted killing of Giffords and two of her aides. Loughner's attorney, Judy Clarke, requested that Judge Burns select a plea on her client's behalf, to which a plea of not guilty was recorded. When Burns asked Clarke if Loughner understood the charges against him, she replied that they were "not raising that issue" at that time. She also did not object to a request by prosecutors to have future hearings moved back to Tucson. On March 3, 2011 a federal grand jury indicted Loughner on additional charges of murder and attempted murder for a total of 49 counts. On March 9, 2011 Loughner pleaded not guilty to all 49 charges.

Medico-legal issues

On May 25, 2011, Judge Burns ruled Loughner incompetent to stand trial. Court proceedings are suspended while Loughner, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, He will have to appear in court on September 21, 2011, when the judge will review whether he understands the charges and can assist in his defense. Some legal experts have asserted in the media that it is possible that he will never be found competent and could remain in a psychiatric facility indefinitely, but prosecutors hope the trial will resume. Loughner had disrupted the court hearing with an outburst, and was carried from the court room. According to the ''New York Times'', Loughner believes he killed Giffords and has clashed with his lawyer when she told him the congresswoman had survived.

On June 26, 2011, Judge Burns ruled that prison doctors could forcibly medicate Loughner with antipsychotic drugs in order to make him fit to stand trial. On July 12, 2011, a three-judge federal appeals panel ruled that Loughner can refuse anti-psychotic medication, since he "has not been convicted of a crime, [and] is presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protections than a convicted inmate." However, on July 27, 2011, a federal appeals panel reversed the earlier ruling and authorities can force Loughner to take anti-psychotic medication. On August 30th, 2011, another hearing was held in a federal appeals court to decide whether antipsychotic medication was to be allowed to continue to be administered.

References

External links

United States of America v. Jared Lee Loughner. U.S. District Court of Arizona. January 9, 2011.

* Designation of a District Judge. U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. January 12, 2011.

* Indictment. U.S. District Court of Arizona. January 19, 2011.

"Pima Community College Statement on Today's Tragic Events." Pima Community College. January 8, 2011.

Category:1988 births Category:Living people Category:American prisoners and detainees Category:Conspiracy theorists Category:People from Tucson, Arizona Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government Category:American atheists Category:People with schizophrenia

es:Jared Lee Loughner ru:Лофнер, Джаред Ли fi:Jared Lee Loughner

name	Tim Minchin
birth name	Timothy David Minchin
birth date	October 07, 1975
birth place	Northampton, United Kingdom
nationality	Australian, British
active	2002–present
genre	Comedy music
spouse	Sarah Minchin 2001–present (2 children)
website
britishcomedyawards	}}

Timothy David "Tim" Minchin (born 7 October 1975 in Northampton, UK) is an Australian-British comedian, actor, and musician.

Tim Minchin is best known for his musical comedy, which has featured in six CDs, three DVDs and a number of live comedy shows which he has performed internationally. He has also appeared on television in Australia, Britain and the United States. After growing up in Perth, Western Australia, he attended the University of Western Australia and WAAPA before moving to Melbourne in 2002. His breakout show, "Dark Side", launched him into the public eye, achieving critical success at the 2005 Melbourne International Comedy Festival and the 2005 Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Minchin has a background in theatre and has appeared in various stage productions, in addition to some small acting roles on Australian TV. A documentary film about Minchin, ''Rock N Roll Nerd'' (directed by Rhian Skirving), was released theatrically in 2008 and broadcast by ABC1 in 2009.

Personal life

Minchin was born in Northampton, UK, to Australian parents and raised in Perth, Western Australia. He was educated at Christ Church Grammar School and started learning piano at the age of eight, but gave it up after three years because he did not enjoy the discipline. He redeveloped an interest in the instrument after he started writing music with his brother Dan Minchin, a guitarist, but still describes himself as a "hack pianist... a 'more you practise, the better you get' kind of guy". Minchin graduated from the University of Western Australia in 1995 with a Bachelor of Arts in English and Theatre, and in 1998 completed an Advanced Diploma in Contemporary Music at the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts.

He currently lives in London with his wife, Sarah. They have two children: a daughter, Violet, and a son, Caspar. Minchin often refers to his relationships in his songs and stand-up routines.

Musical comedy

Minchin describes his act as a "funny cabaret show" and sees himself primarily as a musician and songwriter as opposed to a comedian; his songs, he says, "just happen to be funny." His reasoning for combining the disciplines of music and comedy was revealed in one interview when he said "I'm a good musician for a comedian and I'm a good comedian for a musician but if I had to do any of them in isolation I dunno."

He draws on his background in theatre for his distinctive onstage appearance and persona. In his performances, he typically goes barefoot with wild hair and heavy eye makeup, which is juxtaposed with a crisp suit and tails, and a grand piano. According to Minchin, he likes going barefoot in his shows because it makes him feel more comfortable. He considers the eye makeup important because while he is playing the piano he is not able to use his arms and relies on his face for expressions and gestures; the eyeliner makes his features more distinguishable for the audience. Much of his look and persona, he says, are about "treading that line between mocking yourself and wanting to be an iconic figure. Mocking the ridiculousness and completely unrealistic dream of being an iconic figure." The eccentric appearance removes Minchin from reality somewhat, allowing him to make outrageous statements onstage "without annoying (most) people."

The shows consist largely of Minchin's comedic songs and poetry, with subjects ranging from social satire to inflatable dolls, sex fetishes, and his own failed rock star ambitions. In between songs, he performs short stand-up routines. Several of his songs deal with religion, a subject with which Minchin—an atheist and a fan of Richard Dawkins—says he is "a bit obsessed." He argues that as one of the most powerful and influential forces in the world, religion should never be off-limits to satirists. He says that his favourite song to perform is "Peace Anthem for Palestine", which reflects his feelings about religious conflict. In October 2010 he was made a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association. His comedy also deals with taboos more broadly. A prime example of this is the song "Prejudice" which parodies the power awarded to something as simple as a word.

Early career (1998–2007)

After completing an Advanced Diploma in Contemporary Music in 1998, Minchin started out composing music for documentaries and theatre. In 2000 he wrote and starred in the musical ''Pop'' at the Blue Room Theatre in Perth. He released a CD titled ''Sit'' with his band Timmy the Dog in 2001, but achieved little success. In 2002, after only one professional acting job, he moved from Perth to Melbourne to pursue work. Minchin struggled initially; he could not get an agent for a year and had been unable to find any acting work. While several record companies gave him positive feedback, they were not sure how his music—a mixture of satirical songs and more serious pop songs—could be marketed. He decided to compile all of his humorous songs into a single live show to "get the comedy stuff off [his] chest" before going back to more serious music.

Minchin says he entered into comedy "naively", having never even attended a live comedy gig before performing one himself. His break-out show, ''Darkside'' (co-produced by Laughing Stock Productions), achieved critical success at the 2005 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, where it won the inaugural Festival Directors' Award and attracted the notice of Karen Koren, the manager of the well-known Gilded Balloon venues. Koren backed the show's run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, where Minchin received the Perrier Comedy Award for Best Newcomer. His 2006 show, ''So Rock'', was nominated for the Melbourne International Comedy Festival's top prize, the Barry Award, and in 2007 he was given the award for Best Alternative Comedian at the HBO US Comedy Arts Festival.

Live recordings of his 2005 and 2006 shows, ''Darkside'' and ''So Rock'', have been released as CDs. In 2007, he released a DVD entitled ''So Live'', featuring a live recording in the Sydney Opera House Studio with material from both of his previous shows. As this DVD was only released in Australia, he released a DVD in 2008 entitled ''So F**king Rock Live'' in the UK, containing largely the same material as ''So Live.''

''Ready for This?'' (2008–2010)

In August 2008 Minchin debuted his third solo show, ''Ready for This?'', at the Edinburgh Fringe and subsequently took it on tour across the UK. During the Edinburgh run, he contributed to ''The Guardian'' newspaper's podcasts, despite his new show containing a song about a ''Guardian'' critic who once gave his show a negative review.

A recording of this show, recorded live at Queen Elizabeth Hall in London was released as an album for download via iTunes on 20 July 2009. An Australian recording was released on DVD, solely in Australia on 9 September 2009 and a UK release in the second half of 2010.

In December 2009, the track "White Wine in the Sun" was released as a downloadable single online. Fans on Minchin's official forum launched a campaign to get this festive track into the UK Christmas charts by purchasing it from various online download retailers. A Facebook group was also launched to support the campaign as well as a drive on Twitter in which celebrities were contacted about the campaign and a succession of e-mails to radio DJs in a bid to get them to play the song. It was later announced that 50% of the December profits from the song would be donated to The National Autistic Society. The bid was ultimately unsuccessful.

It was announced at the end of 2009 that one of Minchin's beat poems, ''Storm'', was to be made into a short animated movie to be released in 2010. A blog was launched to accompany the film-making process and a short trailer was released on 8 January 2010. The full movie was launched on Youtube on 7 April 2011.

He performed ''Ready for This?'' for what he envisages as the final time on 27 February 2010 in Sydney. He did however perform a set at The Big Libel Gig on 14 March 2010 in protest at Britain's libel laws, along with other performers including Dara Ó Briain, Marcus Brigstocke, Shappi Khorsandi, Robin Ince and Ed Byrne. As well as this, he performed at Camp Bestival as part of the Jestival Sessions in July 2010.

Minchin was the subject of the winning entry in the 2010 Archibald Prize, Australia's most important portraiture competition. The winning entry was painted by Sam Leach.

''Tim Minchin and the Heritage Orchestra'' (2010–2011)

Minchin embarked on a new arena tour starting with Birmingham on Wednesday 8 December, 2010. A departure from the structure of his previous live shows, his act has been scaled up to be performed with the Heritage Orchestra. It contains a mixture of material: there are new songs on the subject of prayer and of rationality — themes which often appear in his previous work. Minchin has stated that the aim of incorporating the orchestra into his act is to create a comedy show that would not be ruined by being performed in arenas, as stated in the special features of the DVD and Blu-ray. The show is touring the UK and Australia. It was filmed at the Royal Albert Hall in London for a Blu-ray and DVD that was released in November 2011.

Television and radio

Tim Minchin has made appearances on Australian TV shows, including the ABC's ''Spicks and Specks'', and ''The Sideshow'',. He has also made appearances on Network Ten's panel shows ''Good News Week'' (February 2010) and ''Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation'' (March 2010).

Minchin has also appeared on various British radio and television shows, including the BBC's ''Never Mind the Buzzcocks'' (four times, once as guest host), BBC Radio 4's ''Mark Watson Makes the World Substantially Better'' and two specials on BBC Radio 2. He often performs on his TV appearances, such as his spots on ''Friday Night with Jonathan Ross'' in October 2009 and July 2010. He performed a specially-written song entitled "Five Poofs and Two Pianos", a parody of the show's house band, 4 Poofs and a Piano. Minchin also appeared as a special guest on the 2009 edition of ''The Big Fat Quiz of the Year'' performing a song written for the show ("It's Like 1984") in reference to a question regarding Google Street View. On Saturday 13 August 2011 Minchin hosted Prom 40: the first BBC Comedy Promenade Concert at the Royal Albert Hall.

A heavily cut-down version of the show released on DVD as ''So F**king Rock Live'' has aired several times on British TV channel E4, first on 23 July 2009. It aired at the turn of 2011, forming E4's New Year's coverage.

On 8 May 2010, Minchin's musical sitcom pilot ''Strings'' was broadcast on BBC Radio 2. Minchin plays the protagonist Jonny, who leaves Australia to live in the UK. Well received as it was by Radio 2, he decided against creating a full series.

In January 2011, Minchin made his American television debut on TBS's ''Conan'', where he performed "Inflatable You". On 12 May 2011, he performed "If I Didn't Have You" on the ''Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson'', and on 7 June 2011 Minchin made his second appearance on ''Conan'', singing "Prejudice".

In December 2011 Minchin performed a specially written song called "Woody Allen Jesus" on ''The Jonathan Ross Show''. However, despite the show's producers and ITV's lawyers approving the composition for broadcast it was removed at the last minute. Responding on his blog, Minchin stated: "[...] Someone got nervous and sent the tape to ITV's director of television, Peter Fincham. And Peter Fincham demanded that I be cut from the show. He did this because he's scared of the ranty, shit-stirring, right-wing press, and of the small minority of Brits who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way."

Acting and theatre

Minchin's background is in theatre and he has appeared in various stage productions. His most recent dramatic theatrical performance was in the title role for the 2006 Perth Theatre Company production of ''Amadeus'', a fictional play about the downfall of Mozart at the hands of the reigning court composer. His other stage acting roles have included the title role in the 2004 Perth Theatre Company / Hoopla production of ''Hamlet'', and The Writer in the original PTC production of Reg Cribb’s ''The Return''. He has also acted for The Australian Shakespeare Company (''Twelfth Night''), the Black Swan Theatre Company (''Cosi'', ''One Destiny'') and in various other plays, short films and TVC’s. Roles from his days in musical theatre include Don Quixote in ''Man of La Mancha'' and Pontius Pilate (and understudying Judas twice) in ''Jesus Christ Superstar''. He has also appeared playing small parts on the ABC telemovie ''Loot'' and on the show ''Comedy Inc.''.

Minchin also plays the role of Tom, in the contemporary family drama ''Two Fists, One Heart'', released 19 March 2009. He also wrote the song ''Drowned'' for the film's soundtrack.

He co-wrote a musical version of Roald Dahl's novel ''Matilda'' – entitled ''Matilda, A Musical'' – with Dennis Kelly and the Royal Shakespeare Company, which is produced by the RSC. It showed at The Courtyard Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon running from 9 November 2010 to 30 January 2011 and began its West End run at the Cambridge Theatre on 25 October 2011 to great critical acclaim.

Atheism and skepticism

In an interview with IIG member John Rael, Minchin explains that what upsets him most about paranormal beliefs is "special pleading" by people who say vague things such as "there is no harm in it". Minchin states that there is very little harm in something like Reiki, but asks "where do you draw the line?" when it comes to needing real evidence if a therapy works or not. He states that he is an atheist as well as a skeptic, and cannot understand how someone can call themself a skeptic and still be religious. "If you apply doubt to anything...the whole religion thing is obviously a fantasy."

In his beat poem, ''Storm'', which centres on Minchin having an argument with a "hippie" who believes in various New Age alternatives in lieu of pharmaceutical medicine, he states: "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

Discography

Albums

''Sit'' (with band Timmy the Dog) (2001)

''Darkside'' (2005)

''So Rock'' (2006)

''Ready For This?'' (2009)

''Live at the O2'' (2010)

''Tim Minchin and The Heritage Orchestra'' (2011)

Singles

"Drowned" (2008)

"White Wine in the Sun" (2009)

"The Pope Song" (2010) - As a free download from his website

"The Fence" (2011)

Compilations

''Laugh-a-poolooza'' (featured artist) (2005)

DVD

''So Live'' (2007) Australian DVD

''So F**king Rock Live'' (also known as ''So Fucking Rock Live'') (11 October 2008)

''So F**king Rock Live (Special Edition)'' (also known as ''So Fucking Rock Live (Special Edition'') (5 October 2009)

''Ready For This?'' (29 November 2010)

''Tim Minchin and the Heritage Orchestra'' (14 November 2011)

Filmography

Actor

2008 – ''Two Fists, One Heart'' – Tom 2010 – ''The Lost Thing'' – The Boy (Voice)

Awards

; 2005 Melbourne International Comedy Festival Directors' Choice Award for ''Dark Side'' 2005 Edinburgh Festival Fringe Perrier Comedy Award, Best Newcomer 2005 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, The Groggy Squirrel Critics' Award 2007 U.S. Comedy Arts Festival, Best Alternative Act 2009 Helpmann Awards, Best Comedy Performer 2009 Green Room Awards, Cabaret: Best Original Songs 2009 Green Room Awards, Cabaret: Best Artiste 2010 Chortle Awards, Best Music or Variety Act

References

External links

Rock N Roll Nerd – The Tim Minchin Documentary website

YouTube Interview on Australian Sceptics vodcast, The TANK Vodcast, 2007

Tim Minchin's song 'If I Didn't Have You' (Secret Policeman's Ball)

Storm Movie Production Blog

Category:1975 births Category:Living people Category:Atheism activists Category:Australian atheists Category:Australian comedy musicians Category:Australian male comedians Category:Australian male singers Category:Australian pianists Category:Australian sceptics Category:Australian socialists Category:Australian stand-up comedians Category:British atheists Category:British comedy musicians Category:British male comedians Category:British male singers Category:British pianists Category:British sceptics Category:British socialists Category:British stand-up comedians Category:University of Western Australia alumni Category:People educated at Christ Church Grammar School Category:People from Crouch End Category:People from Northampton Category:People from Perth, Western Australia

ar:تيم مينشن bg:Тим Минчин da:Tim Minchin de:Tim Minchin fr:Tim Minchin nl:Tim Minchin no:Tim Minchin pl:Tim Minchin pt:Tim Minchin ru:Минчин, Тим sv:Tim Minchin

name	Thom Hartmann
birth date	May 07, 1951
birth place	Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.
occupation	Radio/TV host, political commentator, author, entrepreneur, former psychotherapist
spouse	Louise Hartmann
website	thomhartmann.com }}

Thom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, ''The Thom Hartmann Program'', airs in the United States and has 2.75 million listeners a week. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, Talkers Magazine named Hartmann the tenth most important talk show host in America,, and number 8 in 2011 defining him as the most important liberal host for four years in a row (the ones above Hartmann are conservatives).

Hartmann's article "Talking Back To Talk Radio" became part of the original business plan of Air America Radio. He replaced Al Franken on the network on February 19, 2007. On March 1, 2009, Hartmann moved syndication of his show from Air America to the former Jones Network, now owned by Dial Global (which also syndicates Neal Boortz, Ed Schultz, Michael Smerconish, Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, and Clark Howard). In the summer of 2009, his program began to also be offered to nonprofit stations via the Pacifica network, and some community/nonprofit stations in the US are also carrying his show. The radio program is also simulcast as a TV program by Free Speech TV on Dish Network and DirecTV. Additionally, he stars in a one-hour daily TV show which his production company records at the studios of and licenses to the RT news network, "The Big Picture"; that TV show is also syndicated by Free Speech TV and carried on both Dish Network and local cable TV stations.

He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); electronic voting fraud; and environmental issues like global warming. He has authored many books on political topics and ADHD. He is the inventor of the Hunter vs. farmer theory of the condition.

Early life

Hartmann was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the son of a staunch conservative Republican, atheist father and a Christian mother, and grew up in nearby Lansing. His paternal grandparents were from Norway. Interested in politics from a young age, he campaigned for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential election when he was 13. By 1968, Hartmann was studying at Michigan State University and working as a part-time news announcer at local country music station WITL while protesting the Vietnam War with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

Education

Hartmann attended Michigan State University in the late 1960s but left to pursue an education in alternative medicine. He attained a Chartered Herbalist degree from Dominion Herbal College, a Master of Herbology degree from Emerson College of Herbology. He is a rostered psychotherapist in the State of Vermont and licensed Neuro-linguistic programming practitioner.

Beliefs

Hartmann is considered to have progressive/liberal politics (although he describes himself as part of the radical middle). He is the author of numerous books including ''Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights'', in which he argues that the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) did not actually grant corporate personhood, and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court clerk's notes. Hartmann considers this a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He has also written on the separation of church and state, drawing upon the Federalist Papers to argue that the Founding Fathers warned against the notion of the United States being a Christian nation. He contends that the 2000 American election and 2004 American election were stolen through electronic tampering, denial of the voting franchise by rigged voting lists, and limiting availability of voting machines in selected precincts. He also accuses the Bush administration of eroding democracy and individual freedoms.

Hartmann is also a vocal critic of the effects of globalization on the U.S. economy, claiming that economic policies enacted during and since the presidency of Ronald Reagan have led, in large part, to many American industrial enterprises' being acquired by multinational firms based in overseas countries, leading in many cases to manufacturing jobs' – once considered a major foundation of the U.S. economy – being relocated to countries in Asia and other areas where the costs of labor are lower than in the U.S.; and the concurrent reversal of the United States' traditional role of a leading exporter of finished manufactured goods to that of a primary importer of finished manufactured goods (exemplified by massive trade deficits with countries such as China). Hartmann argues that this phenomenon is leading to the erosion of the American middle class, whose survival Hartmann deems critical to the survival of American democracy. This argument is expressed in Hartmann's 2006 book, ''Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It.'' One of the book's main arguments is that media deregulation leads to corporate media's shifting the American consensus towards the acceptance of privatization and massive corporate profits – which causes the shrinking of the middle class.

In the book ''Ultimate Sacrifice'', he and co-author Lamar Waldron argue that President John F. Kennedy's assassination resulted from a conspiracy among three mafia "godfathers" who took advantage of a proposed 1963 USA-sponsored coup (against Cuba's Fidel Castro) to kill the President and then hide their tracks in the resulting cover-up of the coup plans. Gore Vidal, in his recent autobiography "Point To Point Navigation" devotes much of the final two chapters of his book to praising Hartmann's and Lamar Waldron's scholarship in "solving" the JFK case (JFK was a friend of Vidal's).

Talk radio career

Hartmann started in radio as a DJ (country, rock, progressive overnight) in 1968 in Lansing, Michigan, (on WITL, WVIC, WFMK) and program director (WNBY) and worked full or part-time in radio while also attending school and/or running businesses in Michigan for a decade. He returned to radio in February 2003 with a show on a local station in Vermont, then a month later picked up the noon-3 PM ET slot on the i.e. America Radio Network and Sirius Satellite Radio. In 2005, he moved from Vermont to Oregon and, in addition to continuing his national show, also co-hosted a local talk show in Portland, Oregon (with Carl Wolfson, the late Heidi Tauber, and later Christine Alexander), from 2005 until early 2007 on KPOJ, initially an affiliate of Air America Radio owned by Clear Channel Communications. The KPOJ local morning 6 – 9 AM PT is now hosted by Carl Wolfson. In late 2010 Hartmann moved his show from Portland to Washington D.C.

Hartmann's national program, on the air since 2003 in the noon – 3 PM ET daypart live against Rush Limbaugh, was chosen by Air America to replace Al Franken on most Air America affiliates in 2007. Some stations, such as The Quake in San Francisco, had already dropped or moved Franken for Hartmann, who now is, according to ''Talkers Magazine,'' America's most important liberal talker. As of October 2010, the show was carried on 72 terrestrial radio stations in 33 states as well as on Sirius and XM satellite radio. A community radio station in Africa, Radio Builsa in Ghana, also broadcasts the show. Various local cable TV networks simulcast the program.

According to his syndicator Dial Global, more people listen to Hartmann's show on more stations than any other progressive talk show in America. ''The Thom Hartmann Show'' is estimated by industry magazine ''Talkers'' to have 2.75 million unique listers per week. In addition to Dial Global, a subsidiary of Triton Media Group, the show is now also offered via Pacifica Audioport to non-profit stations in a non-profit compliant format and is simulcast on Dish Network Channel 9415 via Free Speech TV Network.

Many guests appear on the show purporting points of view on diverse social and political topics. Some guests proffer progressive views similar to Hartmann's, but more than half are conservatives, libertarians, or Ayn Rand Institute members who espouse opposing views. A vigorous debate with the host usually ensues. There are four regular guests on the program, and they are sympathetic to Hartmann's political views. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT) appears every Friday during the first hour of the show. Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service provides Washington commentary daily. Victoria Jones who is the White House correspondent for Talk Radio News Service appears occasionally as does Dr. Ravi Batra an economics professor at SMU.

Like all talk radio shows, ''The Thom Hartmann Program'' takes calls from listeners. When callers asked Thom how he was, he used to reply, "I'm great, but I'll get better." But after a time callers would regularly try to elicit this response so he's stopped replying this way routinely. Hartmann ends each show with the phrase, "Activism begins with you, democracy begins with you. Get out there, get active! Tag, you're it!"

TV program

Hartmann produces a half-hour daily TV show, ''The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann,'' which is seen worldwide on the Russian-based RT news channel, as well as on Free Speech TV; through Free Speech TV it is also seen on selected local-origination and Public-access television cable TV channels.

Business career

Hartmann began his business career in the early 1970s while in his 20s, co-founding The Woodley Herber Company. Woodley Herber sold herbal products, potpourris and teas, and operated until 1978. It was during this time that Hartmann obtained three degrees in herbology and homeopathic medicine, one of which was from a diploma mill. Thereafter Hartmann moved to New Hampshire to begin The New England Salem Children's Village, which still operates in Rumney, New Hampshire. He was Executive Director of NESCT for five years, and on its board for over 25 years. NESCT's child-care model was based on that of the German Salem International organization, and through his affiliation with that group he helped start international relief programs in Uganda, Colombia, Russia, Israel, India, Australia, and several other countries between 1979 and today.

Hartmann founded International Wholesale Travel and its retail subsidiary Sprayberry Travel in Atlanta in 1983, a business which in the intervening years has generated over a quarter of a billion dollars in revenue. According to their website, Sprayberry Travel was lauded by the Wall Street Journal in 1984 for being one of the early adopters of frequent travel programs analogous to the recently initiated frequent flyer programs of the airline industry. He sold his share in the business in 1986 and retired with his family to Germany to work with the international relief organization Salem International. In the late 1970s, he had been a trainer in advertising and marketing for The American Marketing Centers (now defunct), and in 1987 after returning from Germany founded the Atlanta advertising agency Chandler, MacDonald, Stout, Schneiderman & Poe, Inc., which did business as The Newsletter Factory. He sold his interest in that company in 1996 and retired to Vermont.

Other areas of notability

Hartmann is a writer who has published more than twenty books on diverse topics. The title which won the most critical acclaim is ''The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight''. In 1999 he was invited by the Dalai Lama to spend a week in Dharamsala after the Dalai Lama finished reading this book. Hartmann won the Project Censored Award in 2004 for ''Unequal Protection''. As a result of a book on spirituality, ''The Prophet's Way'', he was invited in 1998 to meet Pope John Paul II.

Trained in the 1970s in Neuro-Linguistic Programming by Richard Bandler (Hartmann is licensed by Bandler's Society of NLP as both an NLP Practitioner and an NLP Trainer, and Bandler wrote the foreword to his book "Healing ADD"), Hartmann popularized some of its concepts in ''Cracking the Code'' (2007), which argues that Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz made use of them in the 1980s and 1990s for Republican Party causes and advocates using them to advance liberalism. His book "Healing ADD" also leans heavily on NLP techniques. His book on the JFK Assassination (written with Lamar Waldron) titled "Ultimate Sacrifice" is cited extensively in the last two chapters of Gore Vidal's recent autobiography as having "finally solved" that case.

Hartmann was one of several contributors to ''Air America, the Playbook'', a 300 plus page collection of essays, transcripts, and interviews by liberal radio personalities. It was published shortly before the 2006 Congressional elections and was on the New York Times Best Seller list for October 8, 2006.

Leonardo DiCaprio made a web movie titled "Global Warning" that was inspired by ''The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight''. Hartmann appears in DiCaprio's 2007 documentary ''The 11th Hour'', as well as the feature documentary film ''Dalai Lama Renaissance'' (with Harrison Ford), and Crude Impact.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hartmann has authored in the area of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and adult attention-deficit disorder (AADD) and is the creator (first proposed by him in 1978, first published nationally in 1992) of the now well-known hunter vs. farmer theory that ADD is an expected evolutionary adaptation to hunting lifestyles. These individuals have the ability of rapidly shifting their focus and external attention and of holding multiple trains of thought. This ability causes difficulties when they must live and work in cultures in which "farming" – well-planned, predictable, organized and repetitive behaviours – is typical. His first book on the disorder, ''Attention Deficit Disorder: a Different Perception'' was described by ''Scientific American'' as "innovative and fresh". Hartmann has established specialized schools for children with ADHD, such as The Hunter School in Rumney, New Hampshire, which he cofounded with his wife Louise.

He also operated the "ADD Forum" and "DeskTop Publishing Forum", along with several others, on CompuServe.

Bibliography

2010: 2010 (second edition): 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2006: 2005: by Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann 2004: 2004: 2004 (revised ed.): 2004 (revised ed. – first ed. 1998): 2004 (revised ed. – first ed. 1997): 2003: 2000: 2000: 1998: 1996: 1996: by Thom Hartmann and Jane Bowman, with Susan Burgess 1995: 1994: 1994: 1992 (first edition):

References

External links

ThomHartmann.com Official site. Includes information on and streaming of the radio and TV shows, essays, chatroom, and a discussion board.

Radio program archive at The White Rose Society

Past episodes of ''The Big Picture'' on YouTube

Various video clips at BigPicture.tv Hartmann speaking on various topics.

''Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It'', Hartmann talks about his book in a video at ''Fora TV''.

Thom Hartmann with the Dalai Lama Videos made during the filming of the documentary ''Dalai Lama Renaissance''.

"When Democracy Fails" Podcast on Google Video.

Category:Air America (radio network) Category:American alternative journalists Category:American broadcast news analysts Category:American democracy activists Category:American environmentalists Category:American people of Norwegian descent Category:American political writers Category:American psychology writers Category:American self-help writers Category:American spiritual writers Category:American talk radio hosts Category:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder Category:People from Lansing, Michigan Category:Progressive talk radio Category:Radio personalities from Portland, Oregon Category:1951 births Category:Living people Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan Category:American Christians

de:Thom Hartmann yi:טאם הארטמען