Palin suing New York Times over editorial on mass shooting

[Julian Englis]

Source: The Hill

Sarah Palin on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against The New York Times alleging defamation over an editorial that linked the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) to an ad circulated by the former Alaska governor that put Democratic districts in crosshairs.

A court filing reported Tuesday by the New York Post and CNN shows that Palin is alleging that the newspaper falsely accused her of "inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011." The former GOP vice presidential nominee accuses the paper of printing a claim that it "knew to be false."

In an editorial published June 14, the Times said that Palin's political action committee (PAC) released an ad that depicted Democratic lawmakers's faces under crosshairs. In reality, the ad depicted the lawmakers's districts, not their faces, under crosshairs.

The original editorial centered on the shooting earlier this month of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and three others at a GOP baseball practice in suburban Washington. It noted the Palin map in arguing that there was a link between political incitement and the Giffords shooting.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339774-palin-suing-new-york-times-over-editorial-on-mass-shooting

---

The legal issue is, in the unlikely event that Palin won, how would damages be calculated? I would argue that damages should be zero, since in the opinion of many, has a reputation that is so poor her reputation can't be damage.

[still_one]

1. The case has no merit

[Auntie Bush]

2. Go away Sara!

Get the hell out of our lives. I really don't want to hear anything about you.

[madaboutharry]

3. Sarah Palin is like a bad rash.

She suddenly and annoyingly reappears when you thought it went away.

[Major Nikon]

10. More like a case of the piles

[Freethinker65]

4. She just wants to be back in the spotlight again

The Times printed a timely retraction. It was an editorial which by definition is an opinion.

She will get to make the media rounds again and shill for $$. She got passed over so far in the current administration and misses the attention and limelight.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Snowflake. Frivolous lawsuit.

[deurbano]

28. They hate the "damn trial lawyers," except when they don't.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. I wonder who is bankrolling Palin's suit because she sure as shit

isn't spending her own money to sue the NYT!

[The Wielding Truth]

7. That's when she encouraged the targeting of Democrats with cross hairs and guns.

Awfully graphic. I'd say.

It is reasonable to think that she meant for her followers to shoot them. She is a promoter of gun solutions. Especially reckless at that time when rouge shooters were acting out on the idea of the 2nd amendment right to own and use guns to shoot people.

It was as though she was giving her followers her permission to go after her opponents personally. I shuddered when I saw that map.

Now Gabby is hurt badly, but her spirit is amazingly strong.

Palin was reckless and careless about her actions.

[SummerSnow]

8. Still a grifter

[Wounded Bear]

9. C'mon Sarah, it's just alternative facts...

[Matthew28]

11. What a nut case

[marybourg]

12. Frivolous lawsuit!

Frivolous lawsuit!

[Moostache]

13. Gonorrhea in Human form morphs into Herpes in Human form...news at 11. (n/t)

[onecaliberal]

14. Talk about people who need to get a fucking job. Good god woman stfu and go to work.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. The Princess of Proper English

seeking damages for the prose of the Old Gray Lady

It's WWF vs. The Metropolitan Opera

[Gymbo]

16. This is a serious lawsuit

She hired the lawyer who got Hulk Hogan $140,000,000. The problem for her is she is no longer relevant. Trump wouldn't hire her, she can't run for office after quitting, media doesn't want her, this is her last stab at relevancy and I bet she crawls back into the cracks after this.

[LeftInTX]

17. Statute of limitation?

She could have sued years ago....why now?

I bet someone in the WH is bankrolling this

[Dr. Strange]

19. The editorial just came out two weeks ago.

(June 14)

[LeftInTX]

25. Then she has a case

There was no reason to mention her.

[FSogol]

44. Really? When writing an editorial on politicians supporting violence, you can't use a former VP

candidate and half term governor as an example?

[broadcaster90210]

45. She has very little of a case.

The report is factual and she is a public figure.

That's the short version.

She'll be lucky to not get stuck paying for Defendant's atty fees.

[FakeNoose]

18. Payday for Palin

[Gothmog]

20. What is the Statute of Limitations for defamation in NY?

In Texas, it is one year

[LeftInTX]

27. The editorial was on June 14th of this year

The editorial had to do with Steven Scalise.

I think they messed up.
Why even mention Sarah Palin?

[nikibatts]

39. I agree with you. Unnecessary mention. I think she will win this one but few dollars awarded.

It just makes attacks on the media more easy.

[xxqqqzme]

21. I see she has opted for the

trump strategy. Sue everyone and often.

[Gothmog]

22. Statute of Limitations for Defamation

I checked and NY is like Texas http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-defamation-law

The statute of limitations for defamation in New York in one (1) year. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 215(3).

New York has adopted the single publication rule. See Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948). For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section.

The single publication rule applies to the Internet in New York, with the statute of limitations running from the time the defamatory content first appears online. "Republication" of the allegedly defamatory content will restart the statute of limitations. A "republication" occurs upon "a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely 'a delayed circulation of the original edition.'" Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (N.Y. 2002). The New York Court of appeals has indicated that altering the allegedly defamatory content may trigger republication, and a lower court has held that moving web content to a different web address triggered republication. See Firth v. State, 306 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003).

[Ptah]

31. The editorial was on June 14th of this year

[UpInArms]

23. Guess serapalin in skeered

That she did something that has now gained negative traction ... gun targets over a politician's district? Inciting violence against an elected official?

Rot in jail, Sara

[Blue Idaho]

24. For the love of god - don't settle...

Make her prove her case in a court of law.

[MontanaMama]

26. Did she blow her

money already so now she's looking for a payday? Such a grifter. Can't she work? WTF is Todd doing with himself? JFC. Their probably raising grifters too.

[The Wizard]

29. This works within her ability

to make money. It gets her back in the news and the Times may pay her to go away. The media will cover her every word because there are enough fools who want to see her in the pubic forum, that and look up her skirt.
Depraved Republican males living in their mom's basements have wild fantasies about bedding down Snow Drift Snookie, the Tundra Temptress.

[Doodley]

30. Gabby Giffords, not her district name, was actually listed on one poster with

crosshairs representing those politicians. Okay, it doesn't show faces, but it actually lists Democrats by name, including Giffords. Combine that with "Don't retreat. Reload."

http://gawker.com/5728545/shot-congresswoman-was-in-sarah-palins-crosshairs

[Deuce]

32. Thanks for the reminder/info.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. Specificity

"In reality, the ad depicted the lawmakers's districts, not their faces, under crosshairs."

Is there doubt about the intended target of the ad? Targeting a district methaphorically? Or
literally? There's only one incumbent of a Congressional seat at any time. Did it mean everyone
in the district, a randomly selected person, a non-political person, shoot at the ground in the district?

With the loonies in our culture, the concept of incitement ought to be visited by the courts. I think
I read UK ended charges for incitement in the last decade or so. "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a bit
antiquated today.

[Vinca]

34. Donations must have dried up so on to Plan B. Always a grifter.

[hatrack]

35. Lots luck, Griftarella . . . you'll need it with a POS case like this

.

[DFW]

36. When I saw the headline

When I saw she was suing for defamation, I thought some quoted her again.........

[Javaman]

37. grifters gotta grift. nt

[Shell_Seas]

38. Has anyone seen "Nobody Speaks" on Netflix?

They have an agenda of destroying the first amendment.

This is only another link in the chain.

If she has a cash cow backer like Peter Thiel, she might win. Which will only push us further to their Orwellian agenda.

I think this suit is very calculated and purposeful. Remember Trump during the election said he wanted to open up libel laws against the media? Think about it.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

41. This a thousand times

Peter Thiel is bankrolling this, and the $75,000 is the minimum she had to sue for to file. The real amount is probably much, much larger.

This is Thiel trying to demolish the First Amendment.
Again.

And don't think for a second that he doesn't have the Tangeranus on speed dial.

[Shell_Seas]

42. Is he? Or speculation?

It wouldn't surprise me if he was.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

43. She has the lawyer for the Hogan case. And he's bankrolled by Thiel.

So it's pretty safe to reason that he's at least tangentially involved.

[Shell_Seas]

46. Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.

[LeftInTX]

47. Just added "Nobody Speaks" to "My list"

Will watch!!

Yes, Trump wants to open libel laws against the media. The NY Times is one of his targets.

However if that is the case, Hillary and Obama should sue the National Enquirer. They could make them go out of business.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

40. Marshal Kim Jong-Un to file suit against New York Times for bigoted and slanderous statements

Marshal Kim Jong-Un to file suit against New York Times for bigoted and slanderous statements, causing anxiety and extreme mental distress.

Link to tweet

[Lady_Chat]

48. Wouldn't Giffords own words hurt Palin's case?

"That did not stop Palin from declaring Giffords a "target." Giffords' district office was subsequently vandalized, and the congresswoman noted that
Palin had put "the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district."

"When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said."

I think that says it all.

Never understood how Palin wasn't responsible for this. Officials later said the shooter had no political motives, that he had been obsessed with Gabrielle Giffords for years. Yet, he never went after her, until Palin's map, "targeting" Giffords district was put up. Really hope Palin loses her case, think what she did was very irresponsible, almost like she egged the guy on.

"Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rep-gabrielle-giffords-blood-sarah-palin-hands-putting-cross-hair-district-article-1.149099