skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The NYT reports.Ms. Palin sued The Times in 2017 after the newspaper published — and then swiftly corrected and apologized for — an editorial that wrongly suggested that she had incited a deadly shooting in Arizona years earlier.
The case became a bellwether for battles over press freedoms and media bias in the Trump era, with Ms. Palin’s lawyers saying they hoped to use it to attack a decades-old Supreme Court precedent that makes it harder for public figures to sue news outlets for defamation....
During the trial, Ms. Palin told the jury that the editorial “kicked the oomph” right out of her, damaging her reputation. She said it had ignited another round of criticism of her years after the map was first distributed.
Posts
26 comments:
The NYT premiums for libel insurance went up.
Sarah Palin win a lawsuit in a NYC court? It is to laugh.
Why did she put this in front of a Manhattan jury?
NYT has minimum contacts in every state in the union.
Like Wince, I wonder what exactly prevented Palin and her lawyers from suing the NYTimes in Alaska or Oklahoma.
Looks like the perfect vehicle to overturn NY Times v. Sullivan. Patently false and defamatory statement about a public figure and the paper gets away with it, even though it was at least grossly negligent.
New York City jury. Whose brilliant legal strategy was that?
There's an old saying that goes, "[Never] get in a fight with people that buy ink by the barrel." And so Palin is the loser yet again. SP means well but she's just not cut out to be of the elite. Even in Alaska. Contra to RR (1984): It's twilight in America. (IYKYK.) And like BD said "it's not dark, but it's getting there." Go play with your grandkids Mrs Palin.
She was right to bring the lawsuit.
It is unfortunate that it was in manhattan. At this point you can just assume an area with a critical mass of democrats is going to be dishonest and vicious towards political opponents as a group.
They will tell any lie and go to any lengths to gain power. Anyone supporting the democrat party is an enemy of freedom at this point.
I wonder what the jury instructions said.
I took the NYT's actions to be like, "Objection!" "Sustained. The jury will disregard the previous question." (And everybody on the jury immediately pictures an elephant on a bicycle or whatever the question was about.) Not that that would have helped her suit.
Well, if they believed E Jean Carroll, they'll believe anything.
The former NT Editor cried on the witness stand. Palin won.
The judgement was never going to be for palin, but the ordeal was another humiliation for the NYT, having an ex editor bawl himself dry on the stand. I would not be surprised if Palin did not have to pay 2 billion in NYT legal fees though.
Times v. Sullivan was wrongly decided and the slow decent of the media into oblivion dates from that case. If you don't have to worry about being scrupulously honest then all hell breaks lose and it has.
If your reputation was in the gutter to start with you really can’t be defamed..
A Yew Nork jury? What a shock.
So, if I call Bich a cocksucking liar, that isn't defamation. Right, Bich?
Bad journalism hurts people.
Kakistocracy said...
If your reputation was in the gutter to start with you really can’t be defamed..
Rich just can't handle politicians that are smarter than him. Especially women.
Kakistocracy said...
If your reputation was in the gutter to start with you really can’t be defamed..
4/22/25, 8:39 PM
All it proves is that New Yorkers don't care if the media lies to them. We already know that. Sarah has more class in her little finger than you ever had. Sit down.
Speaking as a New Yorker and attorney in my next life, seems like legal malpractice to have filed in New York rather than Alaska, Montana or Idaho
" ... and then swiftly corrected and apologized for"
When the New York Times publishes that about the New York Times should we take them at their word? Do we need a fact checker?
If you want objective justice do not file a civil lawsuit in Manhattan, SDNY or DC, or in any progressive district for that matter.
Huh. The last article I read on this said the paper added a sorta kinda legalistic apology at the top of the article online, and left the incorrect lying defamatory info in the article while doing so. And now the NYT says it issued a correction. Huh. What to believe? Occam's Razor suggests the first detailed report which showed the way the Times avoided apologizing fully and failed in correcting and removing the defamatory information in its article is the truth, and the NYT report on the trial is more Times BS. I coud be wrong, but I'll think this until anyone can show me otherwise.
So, if I call Bich a cocksucking liar, that isn't defamation. Right, Bich?
If your reputation was in the gutter to start with you really can’t be defamed..
"So, if I call Bich a cocksucking liar, that isn't defamation. Right, Bich?"
Truth is a complete defence to defamation.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.