Palin v. New York Times

[Fife]

What's not to love on this case?

As Harry would say: Choose up sides, forum mouseketeers, and place your bets.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3524696 ... =affiliate

There are sure to be lots of interesting skirmishes as this one moves towards discovery, motions, &c.

Here's an early installment on the proceedings:

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS IN TROUBLE

In a June 14 editorial, the Times accused Palin of being responsible for Jared Loughner’s murder of six people in Tucson, Arizona. Since then, the Times has issued two corrections to the editorial.

Lawyers for Ms. Palin and the newspaper were in court yesterday. The New York Post’s brief account does not make clear the context of the court hearing, but it quotes the newspaper’s lawyer:

Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times should be tossed because the paper made “an honest mistake” when it said she incited a 2011 shooting that severely wounded Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six people, a lawyer for the Gray Lady said on Friday.

“There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” lawyer David Schultz told Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff.

Predictions? Comments?

[TheReal_ND]

Nudes?

[Speaker to Animals]

This is why Trump during the campaign said he wanted to reform libel laws. If the NYT did that to those of us in the forum, they'd definitely be liable. But because Palin is a public figure, somehow they can get away with it.

This double standard fueled quite a lot of the fake news and total assbaggery from the MSM in recent generations.

[SuburbanFarmer]

She's fishing for a way to get back in the headlines. Suing the NYT over an editorial probably sounded like a good way to do it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, that's all. It's not because they defamed her by accusing her of inciting an assassination attempt against a senator.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yeah, that's all. It's not because they defamed her by accusing her of inciting an assassination attempt against a senator.

It's a wonder that we don't sue pretty much every editorial, or hyperbolic forum poster.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL

Maybe because GrumpyCatFace is a pseudonym. I can claim I saw GrumpyCatFace killing trannies by the river and it doesn't in any way impact the anonymous user who logs in with that name.

But if the NYT used your real name and made the same claim about you that it made about Sarah Palin, you'd be able to collect a ton of cash from them for libel.

[SuburbanFarmer]

LOL

Maybe because GrumpyCatFace is a pseudonym. I can claim I saw GrumpyCatFace killing trannies by the river and it doesn't in any way impact the anonymous user who logs in with that name.

But if the NYT used your real name and made the same claim about you that it made about Sarah Palin, you'd be able to collect a ton of cash from them for libel.

I'd be able to spend a ton of cash and sue them over it, but since they obviously were being hyperbolic, I'd be wasting that money.

I would get a bunch of publicity for it though, and be able to play victim in the media.

[Fife]

Also there is a BIG difference in a libel plaintiff who is a private citizen (must just prove negligence (at a minimum)), and a libel plaintiff who is a public official/public figure (must prove actual malice).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_ ... ._Sullivan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._ ... elch,_Inc.

Then there's the whole mess about factual assertion vs. assertion of opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich ... ournal_Co.

It's no easy hill for Sarah, and of course it shouldn't be. Should be an interesting show.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Well, like the author of the OP article says, maybe there's something her lawyers know that we don't. Otherwise it looks like a loser to me--though perhaps it shouldn't be. Mistake or not--who believes The Old Gray Lady makes an honest anything anymore?