A Verdict with consequences
A federal jury concluded that the New York Times didn’t defame Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial, a verdict that follows a strange announcement from the judge in the case, that he planned to rule against the former Republican vice-presidential candidate after jurors finished their work. It was always a hard bar for a public figure to clear due to the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, known as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In those days there was the fear that powerful public figures could intimidate the press. It was a restriction on the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation.
We now know that the world has changed dramatically since 1964. The media is no longer an unbiased reporter of the news. In the case decided today, we had a specific case of media bias. The editorial referenced a 2011 shooting that killed six people and wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat. It incorrectly suggested that an ad circulated by Ms. Palin’s political-action committee inspired the Arizona spree. The original story that never went to print contained nothing alleging that Palin's rhetoric led to the targeting & killing of an individual. An editor at the Times changed it and without much knowledge of the facts made a clear link to Palin's words and murder. Why did he do that? The story was written in 2017, six years after the fact. It was because Republicans were targeted and shot at on a baseball field and some progressive at the Times wanted a fake analogy.
The Times quickly corrected the editorial and tweeted out an apology to its readers.
Of course the damage was done. I recall that I had just arrived here on NT and we were discussing the shooting that targeted Republican congressmen on the ball field and somebody who should have known better dragged out the Times piece as if it was gospel. That is part of the injustice of such a story.
The New York Times has lost almost all of it's credibility. I regard it as a mouthpiece for the worst elements of the democratic party. I also happen to think that today's decision will one day lead to the overturning of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Tags
Who is online
411 visitors
Legal observers said judges sometimes override jury verdicts based on controlling law, but they said the timing of Judge Rakoff’s announcement was unusual.
Such are the judges in New York.
oh dear, poor bible spice. looks like drill baby found another dry hole. maybe if she knocks that hockey player's socks off while jesus isn't looking, she won't have to auction off her youngster's organs to pay the legal bills.
WTF is THAT?
[Deleted]
WTF is THAT?
Damn good writing. You should be taking notes.
On what fucking planet? Whichever one leftist loons currently are hanging out on obviously. Definitely not planet earth.
Very odd to announce he would override the verdict before while the jury deliberating and not sequestered.
Great grounds for an appeal.
Agreed. Getting it out of the Southern District of New York would be a good step up. I still think this may lead to the SCOTUS reevaluating the Sullivan Law.
Are you referring to a statute or a case?
The 1964 decision.
I would suggest you read the article linked in my comment #5 then.
He didn't over rule the jury. He ruled before the jury deliberated the plaintiff didn't prove the charges. It happens from time to time in civil cases.
Which is why he said he would allow the jury to continue to deliberate so that their finding could be used in a probable appeal. Since both the judge AND the jury denied Palin I don't see an appeal being successful either.
e ruled before the jury deliberated the plaintiff didn't prove the charges.
He ruled while the jury was in the middle of deliberations.
It happens from time to time in civil cases.
Usually, the Judge waits till the verdict comes in and then overrules it. A jury verdict is much harder to overturn than a judges dismissal.
ce both the judge AND the jury denied Palin I don't see an appeal being successful either
But since the Judge issued his ruling while the jury, which was not sequestered, was deliberating, he undercuts the jury verdict.
IF the Judge had just let the jury issue it's verdict, it would be much harder to appeal.
The jury didn't know of the judges ruling until after the jury verdict was read.
Since they both came to the same decision independently....
How could you possibly know that?
ce they both came to the same decision independently....
Again, you are assuming that.
That's what was reported. If you find something contradicting it then post the link.
hat's what was reported
Where was that reported?
f you find something contradicting it then post the link.
I'm truly surprised the jury was allowed access cell phones during deliberations. Thanks for the update. That is different from the earlier reports and may have some weight in an appeal. I'm sure the report it didn't matter will also have some weight. I've no doubt this will be appealed, I just doubt it will win on appeal.
Palin lost because Palin cannot be defamed worse than she already defamed herself, her family and her party, the gop...
That is a record. Your comment posted and immediately got a vote up!
You're a New Yorker. What do you think of that hit piece?
The jury and judge ruled correctly and it would have been the same anywhere...
I didn't ask you that. I asked what you thought of the hit piece on Palin?
I see you are trying to be clever and make a funny but you couldn't just quite bring it home could you? Try and make it coherent next time.
r dragged out the Times piece as if it was gospel. That is part of the injustice of such a story.
Yep. The initial lie gets massive exposure on social media. The retraction is a footnote.
It's pretty hard to remember an article from NT in 2017, but if you may recall the article on the shooting of Steve Scalise, one of our fellow New Yorkers submitted the Times hit piece on Palin, which was hot off the presses. I was shocked that someone so intelligent could believe such nonsense.
Palin lost...
[deleted]
Palin lost.
Yes, because incompetence and ignorance are valid defenses.
No, Palin lost because we are all still free to express opinions in this country. Even unfair or unpopular opinions remain unpunished. If you want to change that you must first nullify the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Butt, then there goes your religious freedom, too...
Absolute nonsense.
A return to the pre Sullivan standard for libel would not end the first amendment. The first amendment existed before 1964.
You should take it up with the Supreme Court!
And, read what newspapers wrote in the past...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Perhaps the S. Ct. Will Reconsider the "Actual Malice" Libel Test -- but Not in Palin v. N.Y. Times
"Under existing libel law, she could only prevail if she could show so-called "actual malice," which basically means that the Times knew that the statement about her was false (knowing falsehood), or at least published it with a "high degree of awareness of … probable falsity" or "entertain[ing] serious doubts as to the truth of his publication" (reckless disregard of the risk of falsehood). Mere negligence or even gross negligence isn't enough. The jury has resolved against Palin this factual question about the Times editors' mental state, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is highly unlikely to overturn such a factual ruling.
In principle, of course, Palin could then petition the Supreme Court, asking it to exercise its discretion to review the case, and perhaps reconsider whether the "actual malice" test really should apply—the Supreme Court could reverse that precedent, even though the Court of Appeals can't. (Technically, the precedent isn't New York Times v. Sullivan , which required the actual malice test for public officials, but follow-on cases, such as Curtis Publishing v. Butts , which extended that to so-called "public figures.")"
Palin? She's running out of money. She ran out of time over a decade ago. This case, which she lost, was her last opportunity to continue being the same nothing she already was. She couldn't even finish her one term as governor. At least now she finished something.