"She’d also broken out a pair of knee-high leather boots with heels like stilts. All eyes were drawn to her as she took her seat at the plaintiff’s table."
From the gendered prose stylings of Seth Stevenson at Slate — "Ticktock of a Journalist’s Nightmare/The first day of the Palin v. Times case laid out a tricky path ahead for the former governor—but a 'what if' hung over the court."
That was published on Thursday. The newer report of the trial by Stevenson is "'Are You Up?'/The excruciating anatomy of a journalistic screwup at day two of the Sarah Palin—New York Times trial."
At the merciful lunch break, I grabbed some food in the courthouse’s cafeteria. And who should I see when I looked up from my sad yogurt but Gov. Palin herself, wandering in to purchase some sort of hot beverage. If there was any question about whether Palin qualifies under libel law as a “public figure,” her appearance in the courthouse canteen resolved it. Various law clerks and courthouse staffers who were eating their lunches froze mid-swallow, turned toward Palin, and openly gawked....
Then, in a fantastic collision of tabloid universes, Michael Avenatti—who was at the courthouse because he was being tried on fraud charges—walked in. Palin strolled over to greet him. The celebrity plaintiff and celebrity defendant briefly, and warmly, bantered, before each went their separate way. (Hours later, Avenatti was convicted of stealing $300,000 from a pornographic film actress.)
Yeah, the celebrities know all the other celebrities. They're automatic friends. I note that she strolled over to greet him. It's not as though he came looking for her. And now he's going to have to be a celebrity in prison. What's the structure of celebrity in prison? Palin is the celebrity doing the strolling. She's having her grievances aired — minutely — whether she hits the standard of "actual malice" or not.
And if not, she's got a great shot at being welcomed into the Supreme Court, where Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are interested in talking about whether public figures ought to have to meet an "actual malice" standard anymore. See "Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision/Justice Neil M. Gorsuch added his voice to that of Justice Clarence Thomas in questioning the longstanding standard for public officials set in New York Times v. Sullivan" (NYT).
पोस्ट्स
१२५ टिप्पण्या:
I like this line from the Slate writer: "She is a figure equal parts comical and abominable."
Now...how many of our politicians today could fit that description? Better yet, how many do not?
Such is the state of our country.
I think that Rachael Maddow's deliberate lie that DeSantis refused to condemn Nazis when she selectively quoted his response to a bullshit question designed to allow her to tell the lie, is "actual malice." Any deliberate misquotes, or misquotes not immediately corrected, or deceptively edited clips should be considered to be done with "malice."
I think the standard is fine. The problem is the application. Newspapers should enjoy broad protection under a reasonable person standard—they need to have tried to get the story right. As it stands now, they are rewarded for being sloppy. If you have a fact that’s too good to check, then why bother checking it? If you check and it’s wrong, you can’t use it, but if you don’t check, hey, you didn’t know. No malice!
The actual malice standard was predicated on a different moral structure. The press would be given more protection to pursue the Truth, because it would do so ethically. It had earned the public trust.
That bargain was unstable. There was no check on grossly negligent or downright vindictive reporting, except for the reporters' own conscience. And who would ever let conscience get in the way of a good story? There were Pulitzers a-waiting for the toughest, fastest, loudest players.
And so here we are, with the public trust a smoking ruin and legions of grubby little guttersnipes pretending to care about Truth.
"Screw-up" my ass.
The idea that any informed person, let alone the editorial writers for the self-proclaimed "Newspaper of Record", was unaware of the falsity of their own previous effort to slander Palin, boggles the mind.
Note also the casual slander, by the judge as well as the writer, of Palin as "unvaxxed, of course."
She tested positive. Why isn't she dead?
The bullshit just gets piled higher and higher.
Such bullshit. Can’t bring yourself to repeat the facts? Eff you…
An editorial: the editorial accomplished exactly what was intended- to link Palin with the Giffords violence- with the confident expectation it would be too hard to prove libel because libel is hard.
So hard NY tries for retroactive laws to make it harder, just for Palin.
Gets my lawsuits I hope will win tag…
In era where speech is hate and hate is a crime Thomas and Gorsuch are on the right path…
Then there’s another NYT editorial which can be read to mean the journalists’ intentions are to abandon journalistic standards because…well, because Donald Trump us just too darn dangerous.
Once you give yourself permission ‘mistakes’ like this are bound to happen…
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong.
I didn't know who Seth Stevenson is, but he has convinced me he is a dishonest hack. "Journalistic screwup". Gosh, that's not begging the question.
Then Stevenson offers this humble confession of his own blunder:
"I wrote that the shooting of congressman Steve Scalise occurred while he was playing softball. In fact, as multiple Slate readers helpfully emailed me to note, he was playing baseball."
Because as the reader will know, when a journalist makes a mistake, it's on that level: baseball vs softball, and they're really embarrassed about it afterward, so exacting is their commitment to getting the facts right.
Nowhere does Stevenson describe the "screwup" at issue, but surely it must have been as peripheral as writing "softball" when the game was baseball.
Defamation law in the United States is thoroughly screwed up, and if Palin plays a part in rectifying it I will be very happy and a little surprised.
The author equates her error of stating Rep. Steve Scalise playing "softball" instead of "baseball" to the NYTimes Palin libel is quite amusing. One might conclude a false equivalency.
The New York Times is taking some time off of writing lies about political enemies like Sarah Palin to write some glowing reports on the Chinese Communist Party and the Olympics.
NBC has taken time out to post "both sides of the Uigher story."
The people who have put their faces out there as representatives of our media are making their proclivities too obvious.
They are all disgusting scum and should be treated as such.
Anyone who supports the NYT's financially is supporting China's allies.
Ann Althouse said...
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong.
2/5/22, 8:11 AM
That's fine, but SHOULDN'T the NEWS papers at least TRY to get things correct, and to not be biased?? When I took journalism in school, you were supposed to double check your facts to make sure you got it right. They suicided themselves. NOBODY trusts them anymore. Why have NEWS papers if they can print whatever they want with no consequences?? They have become TABLOIDS.
We must protect deplorable snowflakes from the big bad libs.
The problem is that the standard protects people who plainly get it wrong on purpose.
Cardi B. won her case.
In the United Kingdom, the New York Times would likely lose this lawsuit, but the damages awarded would likely not be a huge figure.
Emails were introduced by Palin's lawyer Shane Vogt as he questioned Elizabeth Williamson, the Times journalist who wrote the first draft of the article
The emails show that the editors appear to have ignored the advice of a fact checker and instead published misleading claims.
If you want the truth, you have to find it in Newspapers from overseas because the Pravda media in America don't report the truth. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10477345/Emails-New-York-Times-editors-reveal-ignored-fact-checkers-Sarah-Palin-trial-hears.html
They just don’t know what to do w/her, do they?
Does anyone remember that Heart disallowed Palin from using Barracuda as her theme song? So lame. It ruined my perception of Heart being proWoman. Only certain women are giving their support. I suppose it’s w/in their right.
The "New Journalism" has a lot to answer for.
We've learned to be skeptical of the way novelists make up detail to control what we think of their fictional characters. Now I wonder if that doesn't apply to the real world details journalists put into their reports. When you know what meaning a detail is supposed to convey doesn't that now make you more suspicious of that meaning, rather than more accepting of it? When we know the larger script or narrative behind reportage and what the script expects of us aren't we more skeptical of the significance that the details supposedly hold?
"It's not special respect for journalists."
In practice, it is. Plus outfits like the NYT have sufficient resources to make life hard for plaintiffs.
"It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong."
In practice, it's about freedom to target opponents without having to worry they can prove you targeted them.
Question: does the NYT ever say anything about GOPers and conservatives without actual malice?
@Bilwick
I had to delete your comment because you put a lot of extra space in it. Feel free to try again.
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong. Says our hostess.
But that's not right. Newspapers and prosecutors argue all the time that James O'Keefe and web based reporters, like Joe Rogan,are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Also,a 14 day retract upon request equals immunity allows for a better balancing of the competing interests. If I want to sue you, I first have to ask you to retract. If you don't FULLY retract, them defamation under normal standards.
"That's fine, but SHOULDN'T the NEWS papers at least TRY to get things correct, and to not be biased?? When I took journalism in school, you were supposed to double check your facts to make sure you got it right. They suicided themselves. NOBODY trusts them anymore. Why have NEWS papers if they can print whatever they want with no consequences?? They have become TABLOIDS."
There are many things that should be done that the law should not be used to get done.
There is a constitutional right to publish a highly biased trashy tabloid and that is absolutely how it should be.
Ann,
You are absolutely right about the ambit and importance of the protection afforded by the actual malice standard. But let’s also be clear about its legal effect, which is to deprive people who are public figures of any redress for reputational damage caused by the negligence of others if that negligence is manifested by words. The practical effect is that the media have a legal license to commit negligence. On balance, the standard might be a reasonable or even optimal compromise given First Amendment considerations, but I hope you can understand why its effect is discomforting to say the least.
"When a masked Palin walked past me into the courtroom this morning, she was clad in her trademark eyeglasses, high ponytail, and large-radius hoop earrings."
Palin, Avenatti and Giuliani should make a joint appearance on the Masked Singer.
If I understand the NY Post write up about their competitor's problem correctly, and if the Post itself is correct (two very problematic assumptions)
https://nypost.com/2022/02/04/nyt-editors-ignored-fact-checkers-before-publishing-editorial-linking-palin-to-shooting/
Palin isn't suing the NY Times per se, she is suing one particular editor. James Bennet edited a draft by the lead author and inserted the word "incitement".
That word has a technical and legal meaning in free speech precedent, I think. He had the choice of "provocation" or "aggravation" or a thesaurus's paragraph of other terms but in his professional capacity as the person responsible for a subordinate's clarity and adherence to company policy, he choose to add a word that basically goes to the issue of "falsely shouting fire in the crowded theater". Or, shouting "arson". Bennet used his rights within the scope of the free press to claim Palin has exceeded her own rights of free speech and illegally advocated a lethal course of action. Even the NY Times, after Bennet's first publication, admits that was false -- though, they say, innocent error.
I wonder about all the advocates of "Freedom of the Press" in this case taking the opportunity to support Mark Steyn and his repeated and increasingly virulent attacks on "Dr Fraudpants, master of the tree ring circus, disgrace to the profession, etc etc..."
Althouse: "There is a constitutional right to publish a highly biased trashy tabloid and that is absolutely how it should be."
There is most certainly a constitutional right to freedom of speech, and of the press, that is absolutely necessary for our republic to survive.
There is also a constitutional right to bear arms, which is also absolutely necessary for our republic to survive.
Are you saying that there should be no limits?
The "actual malice" standard is about the least limiting standard imaginable. And it has been grossly abused--not only by the "trashy tabloids", but quite conspicuously by those who claim to represent the pinnacle of journalism.
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities.
It’s a disservice to your readers to discuss this case in terms of “actual malice” when it will almost certainly be decided in terms of “reckless disregard.”
Howard said...
We must protect deplorable snowflakes from the big bad libs.
Howard likes his Oligarch funded Pravda. He knows that he needs these lies to cover for his gullible stupidity. The major media is owned by about 10 people and Howard wants them to be able to trash any little person that sticks their head up.
With no actual ability to defend the disgusting actions of the Regime and it's supporters he has to throw out pejoratives like "deplorable" and "snowflake."
But all we have to do is note that NYTs supports racism, genocide, open borders, endless wars, abandoning Americans in Afghanistan, obviously fraudulent BLS reports, a surging crime wave, repression of the working class, and the destruction of the dollar.
But then again so does Howard.
This is why Howard is so keen to protect his lying shithead allies.
Althouse: "There is a constitutional right to publish a highly biased trashy tabloid..."
Agree, with both your statement of law and characterization of the New York Times. However, I suspect that no one who personally knows or worked with Michael Bennet would doubt for one minute that he harbors actual malice toward Sarah Palin.
There is a constitutional right to publish a highly biased trashy tabloid and that is absolutely how it should be.
I'm entirely in favor of the NYT being sold in supermarkets, right next to Weekly World News and the soap opera guides, but I think Pinch hates the idea.
I would love to be on a jury. Because from where I sit, it damned sure looked like actual malice. They published shit they KNEW to be false, and that should meet the standard for malice.
Ann Althouse said...
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong.
Speaking of "actual malice."
Michael Malice @michaelmalice...
Spotify has deleted two of my @joerogan appearances
6:10 PM · Feb 4, 2022
JRE MISSING
This website automatically detects episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that are currently not available on the Spotify platform by comparing the official Spotify API with a database of all episodes ever released.
Spotify Cracks Down on Joe Rogan; Secretly Purges an Additional 70+ Episodes In Just ONE DAY As Leftist Outrage Continues to Intensify
Fish entrails are boycotting the NYT, as they've determined that it's not a newspaper. Suggest it be reserved for puppy training.
Remember: Biden/Harris is a democrat judgement call, promoted vigorously by NYT.
From the gendered prose stylings of Seth Stevenson at Slate
Why it’s almost as though the journalist dressed Palin in knee-high stiletto boots himself.
Here's how I'd argue actual malice in that NYC courtroom. (Why couldn't Palin's attorney get the case heard in Alaska?) Put NYT clippings about every Republican candidate since Wendell Wilkie in one of those rotating barrels they use in charity raffles and turn it dramatically for the court's attention. Then withdraw whatever number a bonafide professor of mathematical statistics says is a significant sample and read them aloud.
That ought to prove that actual malice against Republicans has been the default editorial policy on 8th Avenue for at least 80 years.
From the gendered prose stylings of Seth Stevenson at Slate...
How tall is Seth Stevenson? Five-foot two?
Is this the case where the NYT and all the other hack-D liars in the hack D-Liar Soviet-Maddow(D) press claimed WITHOUT EVIDENCE - that Palin was the reason Gabby Giffords was shot.
Even though the killer had ZERO ties to Palin and there was ZERO proof the shooter had any sort of affection or connection to Palin or ever visited her website?
Rachel Maddow should be sued out of a job for her non-stop lies.
Celebrities are profiting on celebrity. One of the costs is that they're a topic for weird opinions, which are free speech.
Is this the case where the word "target" used on a web-site was considered the "smoking gun" or "the walls of closing in" or the "brewing scandal" that the hack-D press made up out of whole cloth in order to smear a person they HATE?
"It’s a disservice to your readers to discuss this case in terms of “actual malice” when it will almost certainly be decided in terms of “reckless disregard.”"
Your comment is a disservice. Look up "actual malice"... and get back to me with your apology. You have recklessly disregarded the actual law.
“clad” and “trademark” and “large radius”
The algorithm spits it out
What abut the article the NYT published about John McCain’s supposed affair? Never heard anything afterwards.
The Times has become the Democrats’ P.R. Firm. All good with Progs and their criminal behavior…they can explain away anything. Thinking Woke is what the baby Journos are taught in Journo School by Prog Woke professors.
I suspect it wouldn't take but one email to go from reckless disregard to actual malice, the former being almost certainly based upon the latter.
"However, I suspect that no one who personally knows or worked with Michael Bennet would doubt for one minute that he harbors actual malice toward Sarah Palin."
"Actual malice" is a term of art. It has nothing to do with whether Bennet "actually" felt "malice" toward Sarah Palin.
From New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:
"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Please get this right. The term is misleading for those who are relying on their layperson's understanding of the English language, but you will be very confused and make a lot of mistakes if you don't get up to speed on this and want to discuss defamation.
While we need defamation laws that do not unduly restrict free speech, it's not apparent to me that the First Amendment imposes a different standard for public vs. non-public figures. I don't believe anybody made that distinction at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Perhaps there should be single standard for all plaintiffs that requires proof that the reporting was both false and materially damaging, but that offers the defendant an affirmative defense if it can show that the publisher had a good faith basis in fact for publishing what turned out to be false information.
Wendaybar: "If you want the truth, you have to find it in Newspapers from overseas because the Pravda media in America don't report the truth"
Does that include the New York Post? https://nypost.com/2022/02/04/nyt-editors-ignored-fact-checkers-before-publishing-editorial-linking-palin-to-shooting/
So, our host the professor of law clarifies for all of us that "reckless disregard" is a component of "actual malice". For which clarification we all owe her great thanks.
There seems to be another wrinkle. "Falsehood relating to his official conduct..." Surely Palin the ex-Governor, ex-candidate, was not acting in an "Official capacity" when she and her PAC published the "target" map. Surely she was a celebrity, public person, we all can agree. But does being a political celebrity automatically make anyone an "Official"? Do officials have a higher burden of proof for "malice" and "disregard" than mere celebrities? Or flipping that, do public-persons conducting their public OR private affairs (I choose the word 'affairs' with regard to the Palin family quite carefully) have slightly more protection from defamation than "public officials"?
Similarly, the technical/legal standard of "malice" has less to do with Bennet's feelings, emotional state, political leanings, animus, et cetera than it has to do with his job description. He is the editor who supervises the authors. He's one of the "layers and layers of fact-checkers." Arguably -- Palin's team surely makes this claim -- he's the one who is tasked to PREVENT recklessness and REQUIRE the author's due regard for what words are chosen and what meanings attach to those words. For that level of publisher's authority to introduce a stronger accusation than the original, it would seem he bears a higher level of responsibility for "errors". But I apply only common sense to that case. Perhaps, as is revealed too often, the law and "common sense" are not in alignment?
The actual malice standard is meant to be a shield, not a sword.
After watching this pandemic unfold and seeing how susceptible people are to manipulation, I am not sure that ensuring that people are accurately quoted would be the death knell of our republic. If you get a quote wrong, take it back, loser pays when it goes to court.
“Emails were introduced by Palin's lawyer Shane Vogt as he questioned Elizabeth Williamson, the Times journalist who wrote the first draft of the article
The emails show that the editors appear to have ignored the advice of a fact checker and instead published misleading claims.”
I think that might go a ways in showing Actual Malice. They had knowledge, they had been told, that their article contained falsehoods about Palin, and published it anyway. My understanding about Actual Malice is that the falsehood has to have been published knowing that it was false, or possibly with gross negligence. Mere carelessness is insufficient, when it comes to public figures.
I saw Palin, and my first thought was Face Lift. She appears to have the same look as other women I have seen with them. Not the first one (my mother had one, and she was fine). But multiple ones. A decade and a half ago, I kept running into the wife of the late owner of the Denver NFL franchise, at school functions (their daughter in my kid’s class appears to have the inside track in following in her father’s footsteps). There had been a lawsuit about ownership of the team, which was often in the news. She had another facelift, and her skin was stretched tight on her face. It was still bad several years later at graduation, when we followed them in. And fairly recent photos don’t look much better. Palin seems to have the same look, though not as much. Yet. Here, by Snottsdale (AZ) you see it in the stores at times. A lot of older women with more money than sense. But then Palin was living down here, last I knew.
The Slate article says the New York Times hasn't lost a libel suit for 50 years. Palin is suing them. You go girl!
@J Melcher
Later case law extends the standard beyond public "officials" to public "figures."
Everybody knows that the political left has actual malice toward Palin including Nicole Wallace who set up the ambush interview with Katie Couric. Even Peggy Noonan showed malice. They hated her. The NY Times got a little too open with the hate and I hope they get slammed. However, trying the case in NYC will guarantee they get off.
In this age of narrative media, where they come up with a preconceived conclusion and then go out and look for -- or manufacture -- some evidence or sources to fit that narrative and pad the story, it is clear that disregard for the truth or falsity of what is printed or broadcast become endemic.
Your comment is a disservice. Look up "actual malice"... and get back to me with your apology. You have recklessly disregarded the actual law.
Attorneys for the New York Times will stress “actual malice” to the jury. Attorneys for Sarah Palin will stress “reckless disregard.” You side with the Times so you prefer how they parse the Sullivan text (which is fine), but you’re doing a disservice to your readers’ understanding of the law if you fail to mention the Sullivan text that Palin’s attorneys will emphasize.
One favorite ploy of today's media is to take some totally private figure, some nobody minding his own business, and then contrive some way for some outlet to publicize them, so as to then later claim that they are suddenly a "public figure" which they can then malign with impunity.
Other than the fact that the courts are infested with Democrat scofflaws it is difficult to imagine that the disgraceful conduct of the leftmediaswine columniating non-Democrats would be allowed to continue. Sullivan is tied to a very different standard of journalistic ethics than that of today.
I don't follow your reasoning, counsellor. You are arguing that proof that Michael Bennet harbored actual malice (in the common sense of the term) toward Palin has no probative value on his reckless disregard of (or actual knowledge that) the statements he made were untrue? Of course it does.
“There are many things that should be done that the law should not be used to get done.”
Well, that’s convenient.
“So, you’re saying”… ethics? The ability to pinpoint- rather than project- upon any figure should be done on a moral ground of higher perception?
Do they still teach that in journalism school?
I thought it was misogynist to write about the way a woman dresses. Does that count as actual malice?
“The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong.”
No. It goes far beyond “getting something wrong” and the deep pockets are usually on the side of the liars, not the little guys. The actual malice standard is a license for the corporate media, in particular, to defame people they oppose politically. It’s not about seeking the truth. It has erased both caution and decency. Perhaps the greatest gift of the Trump era is the exposure of that fact.
If not for media lies, open borders and universities, Libertarians would outnumber Democrats.
Does anyone really doubt that actual malice was manifest?
I have long thought that Sullivan should be overturned- double standards in the law are not defensible. I really think libel and slander should be legal for all, or legal for none. Choose.
The Conservatives on the SCOTUS say a lot of things. And they never get done. Reason? You always have at LEAST 3 hardcore Leftists, plus a couple squish Republican judges who don't want to do it.
in the 90s, you had 4 leftists and Anthony Kennedy and Grandma O'Connor. Then O'Connor got replaced by Roberts. And now its Roberts and Kavanaugh stopping anything conservative or reformist.
Althouse: “Your comment is a disservice. Look up "actual malice"... and get back to me with your apology. You have recklessly disregarded the actual law.”
Also Althouse: “... unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice’ — THAT IS, with knowledge that it was false OR with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.... Please get this right. The term is misleading for those who are relying on their layperson's understanding of the English language.” (Caps added.)
Well, golly! I only have 30 years of actual practice in the field of public and constitutional law, with occasional forays as a lecturer, speaker and panelist at the local college of law, but apparently I still haven’t avoided a “layperson's understanding of the English language.” I just can’t get past the “that is” and the “or” in the original language.
However, I stand ready to be enlightened.
" I don't believe anybody made that distinction at the time the Constitution was ratified."
There was dueling, and maybe we could bring that back, just call it Chicago-style "mutual combat."
they had evidence they were lying, yet they printed it anyways, furthermore they did it in such a way as to encourage further violence against her and her family, when a bernie bot (who was in contact with two us senators) targeted the freedom caucus, the times was basenghi
Does anyone really believe that he "accidentally" said that the senators were playing softball rather than baseball, and didn't actually do so as a cheap rhetorical device (see, we all make "mistakes")?
why not alaskan courts, because they have been corrupted by the influence of perkins and coie, yes same perkins and coie that directed the funding of the fusion dossier, which is now being investigated for matters relating alpha bank, which has relocated it's operations to china, sans marc elias, architech of the steel, they ran the ethics complaint juggernaut against her, with forced her resignation,
“There are many things that should be done that the law should not be used to get done.
There is a constitutional right to publish a highly biased trashy tabloid and that is absolutely how it should be.”
If so, then why have the laws at all, to offer false hope for the plaintiffs? Even though your text seems to indicate that known false statements are punishable it does not seem that this happens in practice. I find myself in the position of Sigourney Weaver in Alien, who do I have to F*** to keep them from lying about me.
The funny thing was writing about Avenatti in a negative light, in the hopes of smearing Palin with a little of that.
They really do think our memories can be measured in days.
Holy shit! The libtard commenters of Slate have lost no misogyny when it comes to Palin. It's always 2008 for them, when she slightly threatened their Black Messiah.
her great crime was to speak heresy, against all his works, I blame mccain (pbuh) for surrendering on this point, with wallace and schmidt, as his minions, of course obamacare was wonderful,
Lots of fine distinctions here, each worthy of three hundred dollar per hour extrapolation. The big winners in this case will be the lawyers....Here's my take: Sarah Palin is a public figure and the price of being public is the extra scrutiny. Some of the people who give you extra scrutiny are biased against you and will slant the facts against you. Fair enough, but are they thus entitled to print not just tilted facts but outright falsehoods?.... The NY Times is a reputable newspaper, and the price of being a reputable newspaper is that you take extra care to get your facts straight. Should a higher standard be applied to the NY Times in the same way that a lower standard is applied to Sarah Palin? If the NY Times gets it wrong isn't it different than when Slate screws up?....I get the impression that the Slate reporter doesn't like Sarah Palin very much. He's entitled to his malice and his criticism of her fashion choices. If, however, the Slate reporter wrote that Palin wore a lacy, push up bra and went out of her way to engage in a flirty conversation with Michael Avenatti could we all agree that this would be "actual malice" and actionable.
"I wonder about all the advocates of "Freedom of the Press" in this case taking the opportunity to support Mark Steyn and his repeated and increasingly virulent attacks on "Dr Fraudpants, master of the tree ring circus, disgrace to the profession, etc etc..."
*************
Mark Steyn is absolutely right about Michael Mann. The Hockey Stick has been refuted and rejected by even the IPCC. It's been demonstrated time and again that Mann DID doctor his presentation by surreptitiously grafting a different dataset onto his graph to artificially push up the slope of his "Stick". Steyn did not libel Mann at all by pointing these things out.
(And say: Climate Guru AOC told us three years ago that we had only 12 years left before we were doomed. Would you like to offer any examples of how the climate is now 1/4 worse, and well on its way to disaster?)
Was it a screw up or did the guy have second thoughts because he knew he crossed the line? I guess that's for the lawyers to uncover in Bennet's testimony. Accusing someone of inciting violence where people were killed and a member of Congress seriously injured, when you know they had nothing to do with it, seems to me a reckless claim and may even suggest malice.
"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
"we think." The real scandal here is that this is pure fabrication.
The dictionary definition of "malice" is where one "desires harm befall another or has an
"ill will towards" another". The legal definition of "malice" for purposes of defamation means a defamatory communication that is known "to be false" or is communicated with "reckless disregard" whether it is false or not.
If the legal definition is proven, the dictionary definition can be inferred.
NYT publishes a witch trial by press.
Newspapers should enjoy broad protection under a reasonable person standard —
--------
is there a reasonable person on both sides of the publication of a story?
one writing/presenting/offering/telling it and one reading/watching/hearing it?
I have always wondered why "reasonable" and not ?rational?
Too many folks here still referring to actual malice and reckless disregard as if they are two different things. Even after AA quoted the applicable test.
Again -- reckless disregard is incorporated into the actual malice test. They are NOT two different things. To show reckless disregard of whether an assertion is true or false is necessarily to show actual malice.
Of course, you can also show that the publisher knew that they were lying. But that is more difficult.
Perhaps a better test would also be to put the burden on the publisher to prove that the defamatory statement was true or at least they had a reasonable belief.
"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
- Justice Brennan in Times v. Sullivan
This is misleading because the final clause appears to be a definition of "actual Malice" but is actually a description of evidence that "actual Malice" (an intent to cause harm) was the purpose of the publication in question.
Of course the leftwing press must slime Palin, no matter what. Whatever she is wearing, or doing or saying - will be plated up with standard leftist rage-smear for the hivemind hater-readers to consume.
'CAN YOU Believe WHAT SHE IS WEARING!? off with her head!'
I'm surprised no one has made the argument that it would be good to have NYT lose lawsuits like this, in that it would help them police the pig stye of a tabloid they have created for themselves.
Even a tape worm will avoid an area where its stabbed in the head repeatedly. This is what needs to happen to the american media until it at least operates like a free press, instead of a mouth piece for a shadow government.
25-year journalist here. Who has made some whopping mistakes, and had to correct them.
The Slate "example" of saying "softball" instead of "baseball" goes nowhere near the screw-up the NYT did.
A screw-up inserted by the boss, not the munchkins. Specifically to besmirch Republicans, and Palin.
I guess Palin didn't like the NYT painting a target on her back.
I can’t believe I didn’t get a nice apology after I was so pleasant about my correction. I guess I need to be more of a jerk. Sigh. Or just delete crap more. Which would you choose if you were me?
If you look at situation A, believe it's almost certainly correct, and then publish situation Z, almost a 180 from situation A as the actual, objective truth, can this be reckless disregard? No, that's a flat lie.
It would seem the reckless disregard means not bothering to check on something which is, in effect, emitting doubtful rays. Recklessly ignored LOUD warning signs a reasonable person would have checked out.
Looks as if the first graf is the way things went. And internally there's evidence of hate which seems to have manifested itself in a flat lie.
Not saying Palin has a slam dunk here, or even much of a chance. But it's certainly one more example of the NYT's Duranty atmosphere.
Remember, "Freedom of the Press" does not refer to people or a profession. It refers to printing presses.
the Times hasn't been a reputable paper in a long time, it's like the high rise in central park, in ghostbusters, it is dripping in blood, like the overlook hotel, one is struck by the fact that they had to lie in sullivan, his odious behavior not an indictment enough, they whitewashed the holomodor the holocaust gave fidel his job, (as buckley once put it) they did similar services for ho chi minh, talked up khomeini, I'll give schamberg props, but thats a rarity,
@Althouse, well FWIW I certainly appreciate your explication. Back in the 1970s, as a young data management expert freshly out of graduate school, I had a green badge at DoJ headquarters, and by hanging around these top lawyers I learned that lots of things that seem obvious to us regular folks and very different based on case law. For instance, res ipsa loquitor does not, itself, "speak for itself."
I am expecting that Palin's lawyers will demand to know why the editor was changing the content of the writer's story without explicitly confirming the changes with her or anyone else. If it is too late for her to respond to an Email, why not use that marvelous gadget called a telephone? That action may or may not meet the legal definition of malice, but it will certainly be noted by the jury (should the case get to the jury).
it was the times and the post and every 'respectable' paper that covered hunter biden's laptop 'with a pillow' then they allowed avenatti to spread his libel, or slander re kavanaugh,
I'm not sure what the legal definition of "reckless disregard" is. I would guess it means that something could be determined true or false and that customary and ordinary efforts to ascertain the truth or falseness were disregarded. In this case with Bennet the truth/falseness of the claim against Palin was known to be false and was knowingly and recklessly disregarded. That's why I said in my previous comment that Bennet decided to make the correction because he had second thoughts about his behavior, not because new information had proven him wrong which he then made an effort to correct. I think he should lose.
I can't get into the dispute about Ann's correction because I don't know enough to question her legal opinions. As a layperson I would go with the "OR reckless disregard" inclusive interpretation offered by hombre concerning the presense of malice standard. No apology necessary.
Sorry, it was a text, not an Email. But if you can text someone, you can phone her so my point stands.
BTW, my reading of Seth Stevenson's description of the first day of the trial suggested to me that he regards the 57 year old Sarah Palin as "hawt."
Forget it, Seth. Republican women are waaaayyy too much for left soy-boys.
I can’t believe I didn’t get a nice apology after I was so pleasant about my correction.
It's not obvious to me that you are owed an apology.
when you publish something despite contrary evidence, that is malice, but thats par for the course with the times going back to 1931 at least,
narciso said...
it was the times and the post and every 'respectable' paper that covered hunter biden's laptop 'with a pillow' then they allowed avenatti to spread his libel, or slander re kavanaugh,
*********
Remember when low-functioning CNN moron Stelter actually claimed that Avenatti would be a great candidate for POTUS?
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/remembering-the-time-brian-stelter-told-michael-avenatti-im-taking-you-seriously-as-a-contender-in-2020/
Gahrie said...
Remember, "Freedom of the Press" does not refer to people or a profession. It refers to printing presses.
************
Oh sure. The Constitution is FULL of provisions guaranteeing rights to machines.
Got it.
@Rosalyn, prior to her retirement Professor Althouse held an endowed chair in the University of Wisconsin Law School. You can look it up, but basically an endowed chair is an honor not normally given to professors in the second or third tiers of the faculty. I think you can accept her explanations as being correct.
However if I were on the jury I would wonder why Editor Bennet chose to change the content of the article (as opposed to fixing grammar and/or condensing to fit space) without confirming his changes with the reporter (or anyone else, apparently), especially since he has to have had the reporter’s personal phone number if he was able to text her. So was there an honest mistake? Does anything other than an inherent desire to defame Governor Palin adequately explain his actions? But I am not on that jury (and would probably not have survived voir dire).
What I don't understand is this... why do feminists hate Palin so much? Who is a better embodiment of the original goals of feminism... Palin or Clinton? Palin got there by hard work, determination and success. Clinton got there by not divorcing a powerful man who openly cheated on her repeatedly.
Professora declaims : "Actual malice" is a term of art.
so what is the art she speaks of? art of publishing? art of a judge taking upon himself and deciding to instruct jury how to think and decide
on another thread Ann Althouse said...
My point is the criticism won't make sense and isn't fair if you don't acknowledge the intent to be funny. That point does not at all depend on whether there's success in being funny. That's a separate matter, but you never get to it if you fail to recognize the intent.
----------
replace "funny" with /defamatory malice/
carry on...
Ann, I'll apologize, if it helps keep the comments section open. I understand that moderating the forum is nowhere NEAR as fulfilling as crafting the head posts. I'm sorry to emphasize "malice" over "disregard". There, I admit it; I was wrong, and I am sorry. Please keep on moderating.
Is there a legal distinction between "regardless" versus "irregardless"? In common usage, "irregardless" seems to encompass both ignorance AND a lack of respect. In formal usage, the common term is, well, recklessly disregarded -- like "ain't". A meaningless mistake. This disregard even though the meaning is pretty clear.
Would be more correct to state that Palin sued the NY Times "regardless" of Sullivan expecting the manifestly and blatant bias of the editor to be sufficient grounds to obtain a favorable judgement? Or should we suppose the case filed "IRRegardless" -- ignorantly and disrespectfully in defiance of the First Amendment and the courts' interpretations?
Althouse- you called him on it. Since you didn’t get an apology, we saw the exchange &know you deserved one- if not for the content, then for the “malice” implied. Or, rudeness, at the very least.
Gahrie said...
Remember, "Freedom of the Press" does not refer to people or a profession. It refers to printing presses.
************
Oh sure. The Constitution is FULL of provisions guaranteeing rights to machines.
Got it.
It guarantees OUR ACCESS to a machine you idiot. Just like the Second Amendment guarantees OUR ACCESS to arms.
At the time the Constitution was written, the word "press" was not used to describe people, only the machine (printing press) used to create printed documents. Freedom of the press means you have the right to publish and distribute your ideas, it does not protect some self-selected so-called elite.
In the original case, the NAACP made several factual errors about MLK's treatment by the police in Alabama in their editorial. The standard was set such that the court could ignore them in order to reach a verdict most people would recognize as just for that specific case. Still, hard cases make bad law.
"It guarantees OUR ACCESS to a machine you idiot. Just like the Second Amendment guarantees OUR ACCESS to arms.
***********
No, you are dead wrong.
The First protects the right to PUBLISH, by anyone, not access to or use of others' printing machines.
Try going to a newspaper office or print shop and demanding access to their machines so you can publish something. Or demanding that a local print shop print up what you want, without paying them or irrespective of content. (they are not bound by the 1st Amendment, btw).
Ditto the Government Printing Office. They will tell you to bugger off.
And now, when ordinary people don't need a "press" to disseminate their ideas, does that mean the First is a nullity? Of course not.
The Second protects the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "access" to them. Try going down to your National Guard Armory and demanding access to the weapons inside, whether or not you have a license to own or carry. Good luck!
(And who said anything about the 1st Amendment protecting an elite? Not me!)
Sheesh
Kudos to Althouse for keeping Paliin and Sullivan- tagged posts apart. They used to be mutual antagonists.
Usually a piece that delves into so many aesthetic details is by a woman.
People laugh at tabloids. Now we laugh at the New York Times. Same thing really. They make it up as they go...just like the National Enquirer, but at least the National Enquirer gets things right sometimes. (John Edwards...whom everybody knew about, but only the National Enquirer was brave enough to print)
I bet I'm the only commenter here who actually bought a Palin calendar back in the day. And I'd get a Putin calendar if they weren't so expensive, seeing that Putin is more likely to be a Christian than Biden is..But what do I know about people I've never personally met? Only what I've been told. "Go to church-or the devil will get you" says the highway sign outside of Montgomery, AL.
I saw Palin, and my first thought was Face Lift
Reminds me of Phyllis Diller's line: "If I have one more facelift, I'll have a goatee!"
Does Putin have a summer place in Montgomery?
You really are an idiot aren't you? Pretty bad reading skills to go along with it.
The First protects the right to PUBLISH, by anyone, not access to or use of others' printing machines.
I said nothing about "someone else's" printing presses. The simple fact is, when the First Amendment was written most European governments had laws restricting the ownership and use of printing presses to maintain their power. The Founders wanted to ensure that did not happen here, so everyone has the freedom to own and use a pres
And now, when ordinary people don't need a "press" to disseminate their ideas, does that mean the First is a nullity? Of course not.
I agree. In fact I think there is justification for making Facebook, Youtube and similar services public utilities regulated by the government to ensure free access.
The Second protects the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "access" to them.
You cannot keep and bear arms unless you have free access to them. The whole argument from the Left is to reduce or ban access to arms.
(And who said anything about the 1st Amendment protecting an elite? Not me!)
If you think freedom of the press refers to people and not machines, you do indeed think it refers to a self-selected elite.
"If you think freedom of the press refers to people and not machines, you do indeed think it refers to a self-selected elite."
>>>> a complete non-sequitur. "Freedom OF the Press" does not mean Freedom to OWN a printing machine. Here's a good explanation of what the phrase means.
Freedom of the press
"Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials.While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections. With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers" This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research, publishing, press and printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and published expression."
Anything in there about the freedom to OWN a printing press? Nope.
"You cannot keep and bear arms unless you have free access to them. The whole argument from the Left is to reduce or ban access to arms."
>>>> No one has "free access" to weapons. The Constitution's language does not SAY "access", it says "keep and bear". If a person does not himself "keep and bear" he does not authomatically have access to weapons when he needs them. The point of "keep and bear" is to hae them at hand IN CASE you need them. Big difference.
>>>> do you think the Second is also about machines/weapons, and not people? If it's about people, is it also about elites?
We can resolve this bu YOU posting Supreme court decisions supporting your idiosyncratic views.
Put'em right here>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/02/06/canadian-man-plows-through-freedom-truckers-protest-criminally-charged-n446611
Actual malice incited by whom…
Ann Althouse said...
The actual malice standard is protecting ALL of us who write about celebrities. It's not special respect for journalists. It's about freedom to speak about the famous without having to worry about getting wiped out by a lawsuit if you get something wrong.
1: The celebrities aren't going to sue us.
2: We don't need anything as strong as the current "actual malice" standard, and don't deserve it.
You accused someone of something. Did you put any effort into finding out whether or not the accusation was true?
No?
Then why shouldn't you be sued?
effinayright said...
"You cannot keep and bear arms unless you have free access to them. The whole argument from the Left is to reduce or ban access to arms."
>>>> No one has "free access" to weapons. The Constitution's language does not SAY "access", it says "keep and bear". If a person does not himself "keep and bear" he does not authomatically have access to weapons when he needs them. The point of "keep and bear" is to hae them at hand IN CASE you need them. Big difference.
I'm curious, are you a moron, or a lying hack?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The right to "keep" arms is the right to own them
The right to "bear" arms is the right to have them in your possession while you go throughout your daily life.
The fact that this is tied to the "militia" (which was essentially "every adult male" at the 2nd was passed) means that the "arms" we have the absolute right to "keep" and "bear" are military weapons, not hunting weapons.
This is the only possible legitimate understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
And note: the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws ...."
The 2nd says "the right ... shall not be infringed". No limitation to Congress, or even to the Federal gov't.
Freedom of speech, and freedom of the press
"Speech" is verbal", and at the time the Amendment was passed it was ephemeral. Freedom of speech meant you could go out into the public green and speak, and teh gov't couldn't stop you from doing so
"The press", which is to say printing presses, produced more long lasting information.
The freedom of the press meant:
1: You have to right to distribute your ideas in writing
2: You have the right to be able to buy, own, and use the equipment necessary to do so. Because if the government can block any of those things, they can block your ability to spread your ideas via "the press"
Look up Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Protecting the production and distribution of such pamphlets was a key goal of the 1st Amendment. Any gov't law or regulation that would allow them to block the modern day production of such pamphlets (like Joe Rogan's podcast, for example), or any attempt by the government to shut down such pamphlets they don't like, would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा