sue for whatever the current valuation of that rag is plus $1.00
Posted on 06/28/2017 1:44:01 PM PDT by jazusamo
Full title: Gregg Jarrett: Sarah Palin vs. the New York Times -- Five reasons why ex-governor might just win her case
Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times, the once-storied newspaper that still brags it publishes “all the news that’s fit to print.” It does not.
Palin correctly accuses the Times of defamation by blaming her in an editorial for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six people. Specifically, editorialists claimed Palin’s political action committee incited the violence. The Times asserted the cause or link was “clear” and “direct.”
Such a link has never been established, and all known evidence confirms the opposite. Which may suggest that the editorial page of the Times is populated by well-educated fools.
Here is a legal look at the merits of the Palin lawsuit.
1.) WAIT… DON’T GROAN!
I always groan when a celebrity or politician sues for defamation. Good luck with that. Ever since the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, it has been nearly impossible for public figures to win, even though their good names have been roundly trashed by certain mendacious news organizations (which, I realize, is redundant).
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sarah Ping.
Go for it, Sarah.
Maybe her lawyer will gut NYT like a catfish.
Out of court settlement will be $10+ millions.
You read my mind. Even the amount is the same. Good round number.
It would also be great if after winning she writes a book about it.
It sounds like she can meetthe actual malice standard, which is hard to do because normally the media toes the line but doesn’t cross it like they apparently did here.
“Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.””
HaHaHa!
The book would surely make the NYT best seller list.
whew!
hoping she gets that settlement of $10M+ from the NYT owners (carlos slim?— he should be able to afford $100M+, imho, and he needs to be taught a lesson that he won’t soon forget)
Should she be required to pay for the Times court costs if she loses?
Probably not. I’ve heard of cases where they declined to list a book, which by it’s sales figures should have been included, but didn’t suit their agenda. This one would definitely fall into that category. I wonder if they’d even cover it in the news pages.
I don’t think every case should be loser pays, but past a certain degree of fivolousness, sure. I know nothing about this case, but knowing Paling and the Times, I bet it’s not very frivolous.
It could happen. Rolling Stone got nailed on the University of Virginia rape hoax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
Generally I say yes but in this case I’d say no.
I agree, they wouldn’t ever mention it in their rag.
Rolling Stone settled.If the trial had occurred where would it have been held? Virginia,presumably.It's all about the jury pool...Manhattan (or San Francisco) vs Norfolk,VA (or Omaha).
sue for whatever the current valuation of that rag is plus $1.00
Rolling Stone settled with the fraternity after they lost a jury trial in Virginia.
Jury says Rolling Stone article defamed UVa administrator
BY LAUREN BERG Nov 4, 2016
Following more than 20 hours of deliberations, a Charlottesville jury on Friday returned a verdict in favor of University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo in the $7.5 million defamation trial against Rolling Stone magazine, its publisher and the author of “A Rape on Campus.”
On Friday afternoon, the jury found the defendants liable for damages against Eramo and that some or all of the defendants committed actual malice in one or more instances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.