• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sarah Palin Sues the New York Times for Defamation (Update: dismissed by judge)

S

SoundofSilence

Member
Well this should be fun...

NEW YORK (AP) — Former vice presidential nominee and Alaska governor Sarah Palin is accusing The New York Times of defamation over an editorial that linked one of her political action committee ads to the mass shooting that severely wounded then-Arizona Congressman Gabby Giffords.

In the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court Tuesday, Palin's lawyers say the Times "violated the law and its own policies" when it accused her of inciting the 2011 attack that killed six people.

The lawsuit refers to a June editorial in the Times on the recent shooting of Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise (skuh-LEES'). The editorial was later corrected.

Palin is seeking damages to be determined by a jury.

A spokeswoman for the Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha, says they haven't seen the lawsuit but will defend against any claim vigorously.
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sarah-palin-sues-paper-tying-her-pac-ad-003336878.html
 
J

jack_package_200

Banned
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Anyway, she likely has no case.
 
B

bionic77

Member
Fuck these Republicans.

These assholes don't have a convenient minority scapegoat to blame everything on and incite their horrible base so now they are turning their evil eyes on some of the institutions that help keep us free (i.e. press, the judiciary, etc.).
 
H

Hobbles

Member
jack_package_200 said:
Anyway, she likely has no case.
Click to expand...


Are you just saying this, or are you basing it on anything? Because even the New York Times admitted they were wrong.

The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/sarah-palin-sues-new-york-times.html
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
What did the editorial say exactly? And what was changed in the updated article? And what precedent is there for suing over editorial content?

Here's the NYT article on the lawsuit: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/sarah-palin-sues-new-york-times.html

Original Editorial: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html

The correction:
Correction: June 16, 2017
An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.
Click to expand...

Edit2: Current statement in the article:

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. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing (based on the correction notes) the original editorial said that the crosshairs were over the actual politicians names instead of their districts, and that some had thought the shooting was linked.
 
P

Phrozenflame500

Member
Isn't defamation typically really hard to charge in the US cause you have to prove you knew you were incorrect prior to publishing? I doubt she'll have a case here.
 
R

Robdraggoo

Member
Wasn't that about her Pac? And not Sarah herself. And arnt these political figures not allowed to have any direct correlation with these pacs?
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Anyhow, with the proper context, I don't think the Times' writer splitting hairs over where the crosshairs were on the ad is going to be actionable, especially since a correction was offered after the mistake was pointed out. It's not like it even changes the message of the ad.
 
Z

Zophar

Member
I actually want to see this litigated because it is common understanding Palin's shitty rhetoric contributed to Gifford's shooting, and now we get the chance to see it proven in court.
 
M

Malreyn

Member
If she won, wouldn't that actually screw over "news outlets" like Breitbart and Infowars?....they basically get away with pushing their agenda because "free speech" laws give them free reign for all the horrendous and false shit they say.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Palin isn't going to even get this to trial. The Sullivan standard is such a high bar there's absolutely 0% chance she does anything but loses a ton of money in attorney's fees. Not to mention the accusation in question cannot be proved to be true or false, much less that the NYT even could have verified it.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Zophar said:
I actually want to see this litigated because it is common understanding Palin's shitty rhetoric contributed to Gifford's shooting, and now we get the chance to see it proven in court.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely that even if it did go to trial that the truth of the statements would be argued. They already went on the record recognizing they were unsupported. Palin would require far more than it simply being false and that's where her case falls apart.
 
T

TS-08

Member
Zophar said:
I actually want to see this litigated because it is common understanding Palin's shitty rhetoric contributed to Gifford's shooting, and now we get the chance to see it proven in court.
Click to expand...

That's really not the common understanding at all, which is why the NYT swiftly retracted the part of the editorial making that link. Not to defend the ad itself.
 
L

LosDaddie

Banned
She can try.

But it's incredibly difficult for politicians especially to win a defamation case. Otherwise, MSNBC / Fox News, etc would've been sued out of business already.
 
B

br3wnor

Member
Palin's a piece of shit, garbage person and I don't think there's a defamation case here, BUT the NYT did fuck up because the guy who shot Gifford had an obsession with her that went back to 2007 and after heavy abuse of drugs and a severe mental illness (schizophrenia), eventually lead him to shoot Giffords. There really wasn't a direct correlation to his specific behavior and Palin's PAC's actions.
 
BFIB

BFIB

Member
All this is is a way to add to their "fake news" agenda.

Doesnt matter if she loses, the vacuum that Trump's base lives in will eat this up.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
benicillin said:
This would be an incredibly difficult case for her to win.
Click to expand...

The point of this isn't for her to win. It's for her to say "I sued the NYT."

This is a big win for Palin, Palin's lawyers, the NYT's lawyers and a irritation and loss of probably $500K for the NYT (because they have to pay their lawyers to take it to disposal because they aren't going to settle with Palin even though its a waste of time to do the case).
 
M

MIMIC

Banned
Unless she can show that the NYT acted with "malice" (a term of art, meaning that they knew it was false or they just didn't care about whether or not it was false), she won't win. Like, if the editor went, "I know Palin had nothing to do with the shooting, but I gonna make the claim anyway."

I haven't read the editorial in question so I'm not even sure of the context in which it was even reported.
 
S

SoundofSilence

Member
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Anyhow, with the proper context, I don't think the Times' writer splitting hairs over where the crosshairs were on the ad is going to be actionable, especially since a correction was offered after the mistake was pointed out. It's not like it even changes the message of the ad.
Click to expand...

And then there's this from her website at the time:

palin_targets_congresswoman.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sarah Palin's lawsuit against The New York Times just got thrown out
16
4K
TheOMan replied
  • Locked
New York Attorney General sues Time Warner over slow internet speeds
34
4K
RMI replied
  • Locked
Trump: Obama Bribed New York’s Attorney General To Sue Trump University
2 3
103
11K
Moonkeis replied
New York Times Magazine: How Fake News Turned a Small Town Upside Down
33
9K
SapientWolf replied
  • Locked
Sarah Palin to host "Amazing America" on Sportsman Channel
6
789
Doctor Decimate replied
Top Bottom