Palin v. New York Times

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Fife » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:26 am

I forgot to post the statements she's suing over:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when 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, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170615031 ... .html?_r=0

:think:




Also, here are a couple of pretty good run-downs on the issues if anyone is interested:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 4d032a2b9d
(pretty good take on both sides' arguments)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/er ... 9f7977d707
(just a take on the complaint; but some interesting twitter posts cited also)

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Speaker to Animals » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:47 am

It shouldn't be a double standard. She should share equal protection under the law, and these fake news outlets should go down like Gawker.

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18292
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Martin Hash » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:53 am

Palin is crossing into "I'm offended" territory.

p.s. Even a private citizen can have insinuations hurled at them without being libel. Libel is "she killed those people with her own gun" and the paper knew otherwise.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Speaker to Animals » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:55 am

Martin Hash wrote:Palin is crossing into "I'm offended" territory.

p.s. Even a private citizen can have insinuations hurled at them without being libel. Libel is "she killed those people with her own gun" and the paper knew otherwise.

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when 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, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

If the "link to political incitement was clear", then the link to libel is clear as well.

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18292
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Martin Hash » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:59 am

Speaker to Animals wrote:If the "link to political incitement was clear", then the link to libel is clear as well.
If that was true, every call for a AntiFa demonstration would be libel.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Fife » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:59 am

Martin Hash wrote:Palin is crossing into "I'm offended" territory.

p.s. Even a private citizen can have insinuations hurled at them without being libel. Libel is "she killed those people with her own gun" and the paper knew otherwise.
She "crossed over" 110% when she filed a lawsuit for damages. What's wrong with doing that? Is there some reason Palin should be disqualified from filing a lawsuit, any more than Rev. Jerry Falwell was against Larry Flynt? Falwell took his shot and lost; why shouldn't Palin have the same option?


"she killed those people with her own gun" : "there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack" :: the plaintiff directly caused violence : the plaintiff _____________

:think:

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Fife » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:01 am

Martin Hash wrote:
Speaker to Animals wrote:If the "link to political incitement was clear", then the link to libel is clear as well.
If that was true, every call for a AntiFa demonstration would be libel.
The truth of the matter asserted is an absolute defense to a defamation case.

Were you out sick some days in Torts II? :snicker:

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18292
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Martin Hash » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:04 am

Different argument: she can use the legal system just like her opponents do, but hypocracy is being against something then doing it anyway.

p.s. I'm a hypocrite when it comes to exploiting tax "loopholes" like Capital Gains treatment,
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Palin v. New York Times

Post by Fife » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:13 am

I didn't know she was opposed to lawsuits. How Un-American. In that case, she is indeed a hypocrite. That is inadmissible in her case against the NYT, though, I expect.