Posted on 08/29/2017 12:12:47 PM PDT by GIdget2004
A federal judge dismissed Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday, according to multiple media reports.
Palin sued The Times for defamation after an editorial in the newspaper on mass shootings tied an ad run by the former vice presidential nominee to the 2011 shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Az.).
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Once they define you as a “celebrity” it is very hard to win.
Carol Burnett and Maureen O’Hara are the only famous people I can think of who won defamation suits against the media.
This was always going to be a hard mountain for Palin to climb. That said, I suspect that the fix was in to save the Times from Discovery.
Oh, jeez! What are his ties with John Podesta?
The Times report was despicable, repeating a libel exposed as false years ago.
It gives his name, Jed Rakoff, and also says he was appointed by Clinton in 1996.
She has my appreciation and my thanks for pushing back.
Leni
It was a civil case and not a criminal case so there was no prosecutor. And the judges reason for tossing the case was basically absence of malice: "But if political journalism is to achieve its constitutionally endorsed role of challenging the powerful, legal redress by a public figure must be limited to those cases where the public figure has a plausible factual basis for complaining that the mistake was made maliciously, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity. Here, plaintiff's complaint, even when supplemented by facts developed at an evidentiary hearing convened by the Court, fails to make that showing."
The article is much longer than when I first opened it. Thanks for the info.
You took my post seriously I see. It was more of a critique on the recent ludicrous rulings.... One on Hillary’s information not being released. The other on Hillary not being tried because Comey “knew” no prosecutor would do it.
Fomr the Wikipedia article on this idiot judge, who was appointed by Bill Clinton:
“Rolling Stone magazine Matt Taibbi wrote in 2011, “Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time.”[19]”
Obviously he is very wise and very important - you can tell from his expression.
A Judge is just a slip and fall attorney with political connections.
And this idiot’s connections are with the Democrats.
This will be reversed on appeal.
She was using Hogan’s Gawker team for this suit.
I hope she appeals and wins.
Judge Jed Rakoff
However, the Times' defense (in effect, "we're not liable because we're too stupid and lazy to check through our our own files") is nonsensical.
Hopefully she'll appeal. Eventually to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Not only the justice system - the whole thing is falling apart.
“Judge Jed Rakoff”
Rhymes with Jack—f.
Gay lips, lol.
I agree. But what was it about my post you didn’t understand? With laws the way they’re written and interpreted and with judge-shopping part of our “legal” system, her chances of success were negligible from the beginning. IMO she met all the legal requirements for a defamation suit but liberal judges apparently don’t care about the law when conservatives are the damaged party.
Affected, effete little ethnic urbanite, who can’t quite decide if he’s trying to fake WASP or trying to fake Ernest Hemingway, but you can bet he’s insufferably arrogant in his attempts to pull it off while out in the Hamptons. Ahoy, Polloi!
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.