Sarah Palin v. New York Times Spotlights Push to Loosen Libel Law.
The trial comes at a time when those who argue that news outlets should pay a steeper price for getting something wrong are more emboldened than theyve been in decades.
'When Donald J. Trump called for scrapping laws that offer the news media broad protection from libel suits Were going to have people sue you like youve never got sued before, he said in 2016 as he was running for president many journalists and the lawyers who defend them brushed it off as an empty threat.
But a libel case that begins Monday in federal court in Lower Manhattan, Sarah Palin v. The New York Times Company, shines a spotlight on the many ways that Mr. Trumps seemingly far-fetched wish may no longer be so unthinkable.
A lot has changed in the countrys political and legal landscape since Ms. Palin, a former Alaska governor, filed her suit in 2017. It alleges that The Times defamed her with an editorial that incorrectly asserted a link between her political rhetoric and a mass shooting near Tucson, Ariz., in 2011 that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress.
The editorial was published on June 14, 2017, the same day that a gunman opened fire at a baseball field where Republican congressmen were practicing, injuring several people including Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana. The headline was Americas Lethal Politics, and the editorial asked whether the Virginia shooting was evidence of how vicious American politics had become.
As it first appeared, the editorial then argued that the link to political incitement was clear between the 2011 Giffords shooting and a map circulated by Ms. Palins political action committee that showed 20 congressional districts that Republicans were hoping to pick up. Those districts, including the one held by Ms. Giffords, were displayed under stylized cross hairs. In correcting the editorial, The Times said it had incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting.
Those who argue that media outlets should pay a steeper legal price when they get something wrong or make a mistake are more emboldened now than at any point since the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision in The New York Times Company v. Sullivan. That ruling set a high bar for public officials to prove defamation: They had to show not only that a report was inaccurate and harmed their reputation, but that those who produced it had acted with actual malice, meaning they displayed a reckless disregard for the truth or knew it was false.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/23/business/media/sarah-palin-libel-suit-nyt.html
no_hypocrisy
(46,017 posts)Her reputation is questionable at best, and despicable at worst.
elleng
(130,714 posts)Questionable minus Despicable = ???
Midnight Writer
(21,693 posts)They make their living broadcasting malicious lies. Let's put them out of business and show the loonies what real "Cancel Culture" is.