Posted on 08/29/2020 1:02:31 PM PDT by Twotone
Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward and headed to trial after a federal judge ruled Friday that a jury will decide whether the newspaper acted with "actual malice" when it published a false editorial pointing to Palin as the motivation behind the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).
What are the details?
Palin sued The Times in 2017 over a piece that linked materials distributed by the former Alaskan governor's political action committee and the Tucson, Arizona, mass murder at a Giffords event that left six people dead and Giffords injured.
An excerpt from the editorial — which was later corrected — read:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
The lawsuit has been tied up in the courts ever since, and on Friday, Manhattan Federal Judge Jed Rakoff denied The Times' request to bring the case to a close, which Law & Crime called "a major procedural win" for Palin.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Love Sarah! Go get ‘em! Fight like a girl!
What’s the hurry? /s
Hope Sarah is able to sue the NYT into bankruptcy.
I have mixed feelings. Making it easier to sue over opinion articles could come back to bite any of us who post opinions online or elsewhere.
Wonder if we can contribute to her legal fund for this lawsuit.
A search didn’t turn up anything. I’d donate what I haven’t spent eating out since March.
FNYT
What the Times does is outright slander meant to smear one’s reputation, not opinion.
since when does publishing known lies equal opinion, except for maybe the onion or babylon bee?
I don’t know. Libel is defamation published in print and requires what was printed to be damaging, false, and motivated by malice.
I think printed good-faith opinions are safe. The malicious part is probably the most important factor here. I think opinions that are published in good faith even if they are false are safe.
I thought we were past this. They were not cross hairs, they were registration marks that I've seen on paper plane folding instructions since a child. They're also used in surveying documents and maps. Sheesh, have these idiots never looked through a rifle scope that has true cross hairs? Modern scopes don't even have that. It's a single line from left to right, top to bottom with a center dot in the middle, followed by smaller dots below it.
I thought they threw out her lawsuit years ago.
I think the pieces about Palin were more lies and hate than opinion.
I think printed good-faith opinions are saGe
Point is, I don’t want to have to “win” by successfully defending myself in court. I don’t want to be dragged into court, period - even if I ultimately prevail after all the stress strain and cost. Making it easier for people to sue over opinion articles creates the prospect of more court cases. even if they’re hard for the suer to win, the writer (the defendant) will see his life put on hold until their case is concluded
I think the pieces about Palin were more lies and hate than opinion.
Thing is, somebody who wants to sue you over an opinion article can always say that
After the kid in Kentucky gets payed, there might be nothing left
If someone punches you don’t punch back because they might get mad and punch you.
She is a famous person. Famous people are fair game.
Why; are all opinions lies?
There’s a big difference between opinion and libel.
I don’t this case threatens political opinions, only opinions about another person.
If a published opinion, either by what is said or printed, actually damages the other person and if the target is a celebrity it is done with a malicious intent to harm that celebrity, then shouldn’t the victim be redressed?
You know it goes both ways. I don’t like a lot of litigation either.
But if NYT meets the requirements of malicious defamation, why shouldn’t Sarah be redressed?
Not if what’s published actually damages that famous person AND the publisher did it maliciously - intending to damage that target. If a publisher does all of that, they are liable.
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.