A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false.
[...]
The decision Monday was the second time Rakoff has thrown out the case. He did so in 2017 after an unusual hearing in which Bennet testified about his decision-making related to the editorial. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals later reinstated Palin’s suit, calling Rakoff’s approach unorthodox and in violation of federal rules covering civil litigation.
[...]
The [current] ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff Monday came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).
[...]
Bennet testified that the Times saw the event as an occasion to urge politicians at both ends of the political spectrum to tone down their rhetoric. He said he introduced language into the editorial that suggested a direct link between a targeting map issued by Palin’s political action committee and the 2011 Arizona shooting. No such link was ever established, but Bennet said he wasn’t trying to imply there was a cause-and-effect relationship, just that there was rhetoric specifically targeting Giffords in advance of that shooting.
[...]
Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict, arguing that an appeal in the case seems inevitable and that the jury’s verdict could be useful to the appeals court.
[...]
“Ms. Palin was subjected to an ultimately unsupported and very serious allegation that Mr. Bennet chose to revisit 7 years or so after the underlying events,” the judge said. “I think this is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times but, having said that, that’s not the issue before this court.”
[...]
Rakoff noted that Palin was not only obligated to show actual malice, but needed to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. “That places the burden very much on the plaintiff in these situations,” he said. “In this case, the court finds that that standard has not been met.”
Politico
Libel or defamation suits are hard to win against news organizations. I wonder who encouraged her. And who bankrolled her, because they're definitely not cheap.
The Times issued two corrections to the disputed editorial within hours, but Palin claimed they were inadequate and that the publication damaged her reputation, leading to fewer speaking engagements and requests for political help.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Damaged her reputation.
Before the jurors were excused for the day Monday, Times attorney David Axelrod expressed concern to Rakoff that some of the jurors might see “push notifications” about his decision that were sent out by various news outlets.
The judge then said he planned to “schmooze” with the jurors a bit before telling them to avoid press coverage of the case.
“I didn’t think I should let the day expire, when you know I love this jury, without wishing you a happy Valentine’s Day,” he later told the jury. “If you see anything in the media about this case, just turn away.”
Ummmm....kind of sounds like the judge is setting Palin up with an automatic appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment