I thought actual malice applied to libel cases only, not defamation. I was wrong. But even if it didn’t the chances of a high-profile conservative winning against the NYT these days would be zero to none IMO.
"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.
“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’.
Aren’t libel and defamation synonyms in the area of law?