Sarah Sues
-
Kevin Williamson (NR) thinks she has a strong case.
For a claim to be libelous, it must check three boxes, once it has been established that the claim was published and the subject identified: (1) the claim has to be false, which this one was; (2) it has to be defamatory, which there is no real question this one was: Not only is the claim defamatory on its face, it was obviously meant to be defamatory, in that the entire point of linking Palin to the shooting was to demean and discredit her; and (3) when the claim involves a public figure such as Palin, it has to have been published with “actual malice” or “reckless disregard for the truth.” There is a pretty good case to be made for actual malice: Palin had nothing at all to do with the story, and the only point of dragging her name into it was to damage her reputation and her political prospects. But even if you think “actual malice” is a coin toss, can anybody seriously argue that the Times’ performance in this matter was anything other than reckless in its disregard for the truth?
The Times should not bother writing another defense of its actions and should instead write an apology and a check.
Because the Times has no one to blame but itself. Palin’s lawyers will argue that the Times has a bitter and pronounced bias against Republican officeholders — and they will be correct. Palin’s lawyers will argue that the Times practices a double-standard where figures such as Palin are concerned — and they will be correct. Palin’s lawyers will argue that the Times already considered her a contemptible figure unworthy of being treated according to the usual standards of journalism, including a healthy scrutiny about claims amounting to guilt by association when there is no association at all to begin with — and they will be correct about that, too. Palin’s team will say that the claim was false and defamatory, and the Times’ lawyers must agree.
The Times’ reckless attack on Palin was not a matter of opinion, even though it appeared in the opinion pages. The Times asserted a supposed fact falsely, defaming her with utter disregard for the truth.
-
Judge throws out the case.
A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly towards indications it was false.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.
Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.
What the actual hell?
-
Turley's comments on Twitter:
The judge has indicated that he will dismiss the Palin case regardless of what the jury decides. That is a rather odd approach but it holds out the chance that the jury would make his ruling moot if they ruled against her. Otherwise, this could be a great case to challenge the standard in NYT v. Sullivan and its application to public figures. Judges sometimes use juries for appellate insurance. While he is now saying that it does not matter what they rule, it does matter to the Court on appeal.
For the defense, it would be far better to dismiss the jury at this point given the Court's stated intention. That would preserve a great case to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
-
@jolly said in Sarah Sues:
Horrible ruling by the judge.
The cynic in me says, "I really don't want to be the guy that presided over the jury's judgment for the plaintiff. Let me dismiss the trial and have them take it up on appeal, punting to a higher authority."
