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 ...
Rat judge. Rat jury. Rat “justice”.
Injustice.
So...open season on “defaming” those on the left? Let’s go Brandon.
AP = America’s Pravda.
Civil case=preponderance of evidence, not “beyond a reasonable doubt....
That isn’t what this is about. It’s about showing malicious intent.
Palin SHOULD have sued her running mate, THAT’S who “ruined her rep”...
Palin should appeal based upon jury tampering by the Judge. The Judge could have not announced his intentions publicly and ruled after the jury returned its verdict. He announced it in advance knowing that the jury was not sequestered and would learn of his intentions.
No kidding...
And since when does someone get a free pass for damaging
someone’s public image, by simply saying, oops, we didn’t
mean to.
That may be the test, but then this sort of thing is
impossible to prove. Who is going to admit a dire objective?
I still believe one of the most vicious anti conservative hate crimes in America was the December 12, 2008 burning of Sarah Palins church with women and children inside and temperatures below zero.
Hatred of Palin at that time initiated the unique era of our time that violence against conservatives is rhetorically viable.
NYT plays a big role in such attitudes.
Great movie. Paul Newman was brilliant.
The point being it (MI) would have to be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
When the guy ferventled apologized that would’ve given me, as a juror, that evidence.
But anyway, messon learned, don’t sue folks in their territory, either the jury is already single- minded or the judge will not allow, or spoil the case....
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.