Friday, August 25, 2017

Palin vs NYT

So Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for libel after they used the Steve Scalise shooting as an excuse to repeat the previously debunked claims that Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords. The New York Times has asked the judge in question that the case be tossed. As most legal experts suggest, a public figure suing a newspaper for "libel" generally faces an uphill battle. Generally  the written statements must be egregious, as well as blatantly (and knowingly) false. The word "malice" is often used as the ultimate burden.

Quite obviously blaming someone for an attempted murder is pretty serious stuff. Add in the fact that their own paper had previously written that there really was no link between Gabby Gifford's shooting, and Sarah Palin, and you seem to have both of the technical points made. Whether this established potential "malice" will first be up to the judge, and potentially a jury.

The "defense" at this point has basically been two fold. First, that the New York Times editorial staff apparently did not know that the allegations that Palin was to blame were debunked (the honest mistake defense). Of course, this requires that they admit to not reading their own newspaper. Their other defense has been that what they wrote has been misinterpreted (the I didn't really mean it defense).  The problem with that, is that what they wrote was explicit and plainly written, and specifically does blame Palin.

So, at this point you seem to have many legal experts who are questioning the legal defense being used by the New York Times and many believe that this case may actually go before a jury. Perhaps there just isn't anything "better" for them to argue.

Personally, I think public figures (especially politicians) are fair game for the "most part". But something like this probably does fit the definition of "egregious"  and at this point is knowingly false. Whether the New York Time did this on purpose, or whether it was due to "reckless disregard" -  I would be predisposed to hold them accountable in this case.  If not now, when?

10 comments:

wphamilton said...

"direct connection" isn't necessarily known to be false to the NY Times, even if they had acknowledged that there was no hard evidence that a shooter had viewed her commercial, or whatever it was. It could also have been intended in the looser sense as meaning "influential".

Also, when looking at your photo of Palin, one questions whether her reputation could have been damaged after all by the NYT editorial. It looks like she's promoting shooting as a party game, and while murders are an unfortunate connection to make, shootings are not that unlikely if drunk or crazy persons are playing with rifles. It could be that's the image she's going for, and was unhappy that it didn't turn out as positive as she'd hoped.

I don't see why you'd want to weaken the legal standards for defamation of public figures based on this case. Unless you think it will strengthen democracy by requiring hard proof for anyone who criticizes our leaders?

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You do realize that this is photo-shopped.

Palin's head on another woman's body.

wphamilton said...

So you're trying to trick me, publishing something that you know is untrue and recklessly disregarding the harm to Palin's reputation??

Better hope her lawyers don't get wind of it. My own reaction is proof of damage ...

Anonymous said...

I don't see why you'd want to weaken the legal standards for defamation of public figures based on this case.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i don't think you would be. if you had followed this saga from the giffords shooting to the recent op/ed that has caused palin to bring suit, this case begs for the NY times to have to fork over several million $$$. at some point there is a line that can be crossed, and in this case a rather bright one. the first amendment entitles a frees press to report, but it is not a license to blatantly LIE.

cnn recently published a story where the lies were SO blatant and SO egregious they pulled and retracted it in the face of a $100 million lawsuit.

the term "fake news" is legitimate in this day and age. the msm is completely out of control, and this is just the case to get their attention and to pull them back into line.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
So you're trying to trick me, publishing something that you know is untrue and recklessly disregarding the harm to Palin's reputation??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

seriously?

who DIDN'T really know that was photoshopped???




C.H. Truth said...

I think WP is trying to be funny?

wphamilton said...

Funny? You tricked me by publishing this deliberate falsehood and I thought poorly of Palin as a result. That's not funny, that's reckless disregard.

Good thing that legal standard hasn't been weakened yet.

C.H. Truth said...

Well technically, WP...

There has to be an intent on my part to "make her look bad". It's not enough that you might decide to "think poorly of her" when others might see the picture as "flattering".

For some, being accurately called a Democrat or a Republican might make some people think poorly of the person.... but that writer would not be responsible for what others think.

Likewise, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that you think poorly (apparently in general) of women wearing flag decorated bikinis and carrying firearms. That seems to be just a natural bigotry on your part against patriotic, second amendment toting, women who like to wear skimpy clothing (for whatever reasons).


But the NY Times did, in fact, possibly intentionally lied (or acted with reckless disregard for the truth) - and suggested that Palin was responsible for someone else's attempted murder.

Not exactly the same thing as a bikini and rifle.

wphamilton said...

There has to be an intent on my part to "make her look bad".

You'd think, given that they call it "actual malice".

Yet seriously, as a standard in US law for libel, it does NOT require intent be proven. You have it right in your original blog post: knowledge that it was false and/or reckless disregard.

It goes way back to a case where a writer's malicious intent is impossible to prove, so his prior knowledge of the falsehood was deemed prima facie as malice. That later "stuck" in a Supreme Court case, becoming Constitutional law.

So, knowing that your photo of "Insane Palin" holding a rifle was false, no one needs to prove that you intended it to be insulting. Although we all know that you did :)

Indy Voter said...

The ditz's suit was tossed by the judge.