Posted on 02/15/2022 12:30:21 PM PST by Coronal
NEW YORK (AP) — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lost her libel lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday when a jury rejected her claim that the newspaper maliciously damaged her reputation by erroneously linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting.
A judge had already declared that if the jury sided with Palin, he would set aside its verdict on the grounds that she hadn’t proven the paper acted maliciously, something required in libel suits involving public figures.
Palin, a onetime Republican vice presidential nominee, sued the newspaper in 2017 claiming it had damaged her career as a political commentator and consultant with an editorial about gun control published after a man opened fire on a Congressional baseball team practice in Washington.
U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was wounded in the shooting, committed by a man with a history of anti-GOP activity.
In the editorial, the Times blamed overheated political rhetoric. It likened the shooting to a 2011 massacre in Arizona that left six dead and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords severely wounded, and said Palin’s political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence at the time by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
In a correction shortly after the editorial was published, The Times said it had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and that it had “incorrectly described” the map; a tweet read, “We got an important fact wrong.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
So the judge announced, prior to the Jury coming to its verdict, that she did not prove her case and he would set aside their decision if they ruled in her favor. In this day in age does anyone think the jury did not know this?
Grounds for an appeal.
Move on
Gee does anyone not believe that the Judge ruined the jury’s decision by announcing what he did rendering the jury neutered!
They said Sarah was so hated she would never get a favorable verdict in New York city.
Naw, she started screeching at the judge and he tossed her out.
Happens in court, happens in roadhouse bars.
Nobody likes that.
But so many people here shout “sue, sue sue,” all the time.
The NYT writing against ANY Republican or Conservative is, BY DEFINITION, malicious.
This judge unfairly inserted the bench into the equation.
New York, what did she expect?
How do you prove someone had malicious intent?
What could be a more perfect interference with the function of a jury than for a judge to tell it, while it is deliberating, and however indirectly, what verdict it should render?
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lost her libel lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday when a jury rejected her claim that the newspaper maliciously damaged her reputation by erroneously linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting.
And then this rewrite ...
"Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lost her libel lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday when a jury denied her claim that the newspaper maliciously damaged her reputation by erroneously linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting."
Words have associations and 'reject' is a vigorous version of 'denied'! As such, the propaganda value is perpetuated by the AP! As a one-time thing this would be minor but with the AP's long history, this is how they FRAME their views! Just like Black vs white!
Surprised?
Full disclosure, I am not a lawyer and have not played one on TV, but as I understand the libel law as it is interpreted in the U.S., it is next to impossible for someone famous to win a libel suit.
The victim has to prove that not only was the statement false, that the person/newspaper issuing it knew it was false, and they uttered/published it with malice, i.e. they meant to injure the reputation of the victim. It is up to the victim to prove the malice bit.
Escape from New York.
“she hadn’t proven the paper acted maliciously.” Yeah, right. Sadly, the judge is unreasonable and illogical, and probably miserable.
Interesting chain of events, considering this is the SAME US District Judge (Rakoff) who revived Palin’s lawsuit, back in 2018....this, after the NYSlimes had asked (in 2017) that her case be dismissed.
Yet, he (Rakoff) decides AHEAD of time, to broadcast that he’s going to dismiss the case, that had just gone to jury.
So, was this just to run up fees/charges, for Palin....and, to once again, smear her, publicly? They always tell you who they fear.
Also interesting.....attorney for the NYSlimes .... David Axelrod.
Two tiered Just Us system, indeed.
Posted on 2/8/2022, 5:12:45 PM by where's_the_Outrage?
James Bennet, the former editorial page editor of the New York Times, testified in a defamation trial.
Sarah Palin brought the lawsuit against the Times over a 2017 editorial she said defamed her.
Bennet took the blame on the stand for inserting the offending phrases in the editorial.
The former top editor of the New York Times's opinion division apologized in testimony Thursday for mistakes that led to a defamation lawsuit brought against the publication.
"This is my fault," former Times editorial page editor James Bennet testified in court Tuesday afternoon. "I wrote those sentences and I'm not looking to shift the blame for anyone else. I want that for the record."......
Vogt asked if he ever apologized to Palin for the mistake. Bennet noted that he initially did in a statement meant for CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, but that Rhoades Ha edited it out because the Times had "a policy of not apologizing for corrections" in stories.
Emails between New York Times editors reveal they ignored fact checkers and 'sneaked in link' between Sarah Palin and shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords in editorial, defamation trial hears
UK Daily Mail ^ | February 5 2022 | DANIEL BATES
Posted on 2/5/2022, 2:24:02 AM by knighthawk
Damning internal emails sent by members of the New York Times editorial board were made public today during the libel trial brought by Sarah Palin against the newspaper.
The emails were introduced by Palin's lawyer Shane Vogt as he questioned Elizabeth Williamson, a journalist with the editorial section of the Times who wrote the first draft of the article.
In a message shown to the jury, Jesse Wegman, a member of the NYT editorial board, wrote that he worried the opinion piece that Palin sued over looked like they were trying to 'sneak in' a link between her and the 2011 shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Court revives Sarah Palin defamation case vs NY Times over editorial on shootings
Reuters ^ | Aug. 6, 20129 | Jonathan Stermpel
Posted on 8/6/2019, 3:24:45 PM by libstripper
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court [the Second Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over New York] revived former U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, over an editorial that she said maliciously linked her to the 2011 mass shooting that seriously wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
(Excerpt) Read more at af.reuters.com ...
NY Times Editorial Writer Will Proclaim Ignorance In Response To Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit
Hotair ^ | August 10,2017 | John Sexton
Posted on 8/10/2017, 8:39:00 PM by Hojczyk
Let’s just step back and admire this situation for a moment. One or more editorial writers at the NY Times, the folks who speak with the paper’s voice of authority on every subject you can imagine, will plead with a judge to believe they did not know the basic facts of a story they were writing about, including facts reported in their own paper! The Times’ defense is: We so dumb.
I find this indescribably delicious, especially given that it was Paul Krugman who used his perch at the NY Times to lead this false charge against Palin back in 2011. There were certainly many who echoed him at the time, but Krugman was the most high profile voice making this claim after the shooting. In fact, if the editorial writers are asked to explain where they got the dumb idea that Palin had been definitively linked to the Tucson shooting, the most likely explanation will be that they got the idea from Paul Krugman. There’s a certain justice to having the paper that mainstreamed this lie face the music over it, albeit belatedly.
Will the judge believe that NY Times editorial writers are ignorant rubes who don’t read their own paper? I won’t guess at the outcome, but I will say that the author(s) certainly wrote as if the facts were crystal clear. In case you’ve forgotten here’s the claim the author(s) of the editorial made:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
how does she prove she was damaged? the people who hated her saw it and still hated her and everyone else saw it was from NYT and assumed the story was b.s. for that reason.
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.