Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/14/palin-new-york-times-judge-ruling-00008719

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 evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly towards indications it was false.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.

*the end*

[CatWoman]

1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Palin was attempting to overturn NYT v. Sullivan

The only way that this case made sense was to overturn NYT v. Sullivan because there was no actual malice or gross negligence

[tishaLA]

7. That's the end goal

And they have packed the courts to try to make it happen. As Scarborough said this morning, they should be careful what they're working for because if they're successful, TDFG accused Scarborough of murder 12 separate times and he'd never get out of court if the rules change because he's unable to restrain himself from lying maliciously about any- and everyone.

[ificandream]

3. Klondike Barbie goofs again! :)

[Vinca]

4. I'm confused. He's allowing the jury to continue to deliberate so if they returned a verdict in

favor of Klondike Barbie, she would win and it wouldn't matter what the judge says. Am I right? Bottom line, Palin wins in either case. If it's in her favor, maybe she collects some loot. If it's against her, she still collects loot peddling a meme about "New York liberal juries," yada, yada, yada. Suppose she's ultimately trying to get the Slobfather to pick her for Veep?

[Nevilledog]

8. No. She lost at this level, no matter what jury says.

I've never seen a judge do this, but I've also never done a libel case.

Judge says he wants the appellate court to have the results of jury deliberations to basically complete the record.

[spanone]

5. whatever, she'll appeal all the way to the supreme court and this f'd up court will take it up.

....and they'll rule in her favor.

hope not, but this court is not our friend

[zuul]

6. Womp womp!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Two Supreme Court justices, Gorsuch and Thomas, have hinted they want to change NYT v. Sullivan

This case was designed to get to the SCOTUS to try to overturn NYT v. Sullivan

Link to tweet

The case — the first libel lawsuit against the Times to go to trial in the United States in nearly 20 years — holds the potential to upend decades of precedent that have offered broad protections to media organizations when writing about public figures......

Yet two Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, have hinted that they would like to revisit the logic of Sullivan, meaning that even a loss in this trial could send shock waves through the media industry if an appeal makes its way to the high court.

Beyond the legal issues, the courtroom phase of this case is shining a not-always-flattering light on editing practices within one of the most prestigious media outlets in the world.

[Tommy Carcetti]

10. This would have been the likely result if the Nate Sandmann suits would have gone to court, too.

However, lawsuits are both costly and time consuming to defend, even if they are not supported by the facts or law, and frequently a plaintiff in a situation will throw out a pittance in exchange for a confidential settlement, and that is that. Since the amount is confidential, the settling party is free to posture that they got some great result, when many times it really isn't anything of great substance.

It's called "cost of defense" or "nuisance value."

[Caliman73]

11. Well, I know a lot of right wing media outlets that can be sued into oblivion if they do...

A few of which are already facing major problems for defamation of Dominion Voting and Smartmatic. If they relax those slander and libel laws, I am sure that more than a few people who have been lied about by Fox would be happy to pursue justice.

[Windy City Charlie]

12. Haha

I'm sure it won't take long for the looneys to say the judge was bought off by "the deep state"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. NYT v. Sullivan is on the hit list for some conservatives on the SCOTUS

Link to tweet

[msfiddlestix]

14. Wondering if HRC is watching this carefully?

If Palin succeeds, she'll have paved good ground for HRC to proceed.

I think HRC should do so anyway. regardless of how this turns out for Palin.