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 ...
Evidently did get a good draw on a judge.
"Defamation" is the overall term for libel (written) and slander (oral). Both require proof of actual malice in the case of a plaintiff who is a public figure.
Not likely. It is virtually impossible under current law for a public figure to win a libel case.
Reversed by the 2nd Circuit? Not likely.
Probably both
Judge Rakoff has been married since 1974 and has 3 children.
Doesn’t mean anything.
Then what is your evidence that he’s gay?
“I thought actual malice applied to libel cases only, not defamation.”
Libel is written defamation, slander is spoken defamation. Both are defamation.
A “motion to dismiss” (MTD) asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy.
Judges weigh law, juries weigh facts.
A motion for summary judgment (SJ) is difficult to get. A civil defendant usually follows an unsuccessful MTD with a SJ motion because a MTD is rarely granted.
The left doesn’t want this going before a jury. She should appeal. Sarah’s the only reason Juan McLame wasn’t blown completely out of the water in 2008.
The left defamed Sarah Palin every day and in every way. The NYT was saying in this article, basically, that she was urging violence; they knew the impression this article would make with their average reader.
The NYT story damaged her reputation with the part of the country that still actually reads that fishwrap, with non-readers who saw the article posted elsewhere and with `least sophisticated readers’.
The judiciary IS politics, as much or more than any other branch of government. Just another way the glut of law school graduates in government can make pathetic decisions and screw things up.
If the NYT maliciously published an article defaming Palin, does issuing an apology later erase that malicious defamation? I don’t think so.
Wrong judge and I don’t know if there is a federal judge who would judge rightly here. So many of them are Obama stooges.
God, I pray Trump will correct this blight of unjust judges in our land and restore right judgment in America.
Rule of Lucille,
-x-x-x-
Any relation to Jungle Rules?
Aren’t libel and defamation synonyms in the area of law?
Yep
Who are you his frickin’ brother? Or are you looking for a date?
Neither. Just a lawyer who has appeared in Judge Rakoff's court and found him to be both scholarly and honorable.
He's also a crook. NYT bribed him to deliver this result.
And by this crooked liars logic, that can't be defamation, because I am anonymous.
Honorable? Are you serious? The NYT defamed and slandered Sarah Palin and this “honorable” Judge dismisses the case? Wow, what a scholar. What a man.
Thank for the reminder of why the average person rates lawyers down there with vipers, poisonous spiders, and other vermin.
Fine. Let the plaintiff make the case in front of a jury. Because the slimes did know it was false.
If this was not a case of “malice” displayed in a wildly inaccurate article against a public figure then the word “malice” has no meaning anymore, legal or otherwise. The NY Times showed by its own “news” reporting that the editorial later published was a total LIE. If a publication does not even need to consult its own published version of the “facts” then facts and objectivity have been completely destroyed.
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.