Sarah Palin says NY Times editor's animosity led to defamation

By Jonathan Stempel

 

FILE PHOTO: Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin gets off the bus while campaigning for U.S. Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore at the Historic Union Station Train Shed in Montgomery, Alabama, U.S., September 21, 2017. REUTERS/Tami Chappell

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sarah Palin said in an amended defamation lawsuit against the New York Times on Monday that the deep-seated "animosity and ill-will" of the newspaper's editorial page editor toward her motivated him to falsely link her to a mass shooting.

 

Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor, made her claim against the editor, James Bennet, nearly five months after the federal appeals court in Manhattan revived her lawsuit, saying it had been wrongly dismissed by the trial judge.

 

"Gov. Palin brings this action because Mr. Bennet and The Times did not live up to the primary responsibility attendant to the extraordinary power of the press: tell the truth," the complaint said.

 

A spokeswoman for the Times declined to comment.

 

Palin is seeking damages "far in excess" of $75,000. Her lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

The lawsuit arose from a June 14, 2017 editorial that Palin said wrongly linked her to the January 2011 mass shooting where six people died and Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded.

 

That editorial said Palin's political action committee had circulated a map that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under "stylized crosshairs" before the congresswoman was shot.

 

The Times later corrected the editorial, saying there was no link between "political rhetoric" and the Giffords shooting.

 

Bennet has said he had not intended to blame Palin for the Giffords shooting, but was simply making a point about the political environment.

 

In reinstating the lawsuit, which also names Bennet as a defendant, the appeals court said on Aug. 6 that Palin had plausibly alleged that the Times defamed her, though she still bore the "high" burden of showing it acted with "actual malice."

 

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan oversees the case, and has scheduled a June 22, 2020 trial.

 

The case is Palin v New York Times Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-04853.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Dan Grebler)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-31

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Its great to see these Republicans suddenly turn "snowflake" and mewl for "defamation" money. I doubt she will win, but doubt she is paying for the lawyers anyway. 

Good luck Caribou Barbie, you became a public figure, now live with being a grifter 

John McCains biggest political mistake ever she’s a nut imo

Sarah Palin was my American heroine. I didn't give a monkey's about McCaine, but I'd like to have seen her as VP.

The abuse she received was as bad and as undeserved as that being given to Trump, IMO.

The Palin / NYTimes defamation case being reinstated is, like the decision in another US defamation case discussed on here, a matter of procedure. From the actual appeal opinion:

 

"This case is ultimately about the First Amendment, but the subject matter implicated in this appeal is far less dramatic: rules of procedure and pleading standards."

1 hour ago, LomSak27 said:

I doubt she will win, but doubt she is paying for the lawyers anyway. 

Well she has already "won" half her case. Do you think her allegations of malice on the part of the NY Times are plausible? If not, why? Just trying to find out why you "doubt" she will win.

 

Also, whos paying for her lawyers?

Ms. Palin most likely has a contingency fee arrangement with her attorneys.

 

To some of the other questions above, from the appeals court ruling:

 

We conclude by recognizing that First Amendment protections are essential to provide “breathing space” for freedom of expression.

 

But, at this stage, our concern is with how district courts evaluate pleadings. Nothing in this opinion should therefore be construed to cast doubt on the First Amendment’s crucial constitutional protections. Indeed, this protection is precisely why Palin’s evidentiary burden at trial—to show by clear and convincing evidence that (NY Times editor) Bennet acted with actual malice—is high. 

 

At the pleading stage, however, Palin’s only obstacle is the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal. She has cleared that hurdle.

 

Naturally, we take no position on the merits of Palin’s claim.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The abuse she received was as bad and as undeserved as that being given to Trump, IMO.

In my opinion, it was less deserved than Trump’s, but not nearly as bad. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Tug said:

John McCains biggest political mistake ever she’s a nut imo

No, his biggest mistake was moving left in an effort appease the press. 
 

I was happy when he lost. If we’re going to have a leftist in the Whitehouse, better they’re not pretending to be a Republican. 

 

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well she has already "won" half her case. Do you think her allegations of malice on the part of the NY Times are plausible? If not, why? Just trying to find out why you "doubt" she will win.

 

Also, whos paying for her lawyers?

As anyone who knows anything about such cases can tell you, there is a extremely high bar to hurdle for public figures trying to sue for defamation. Or do you believe that Sarah Palin is not a public figure?

Edited December 31, 20196 yr by bristolboy

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

As anyone who knows anything about such cases can tell you, there is a extremely high bar to hurdle for public figures trying to sue for defamation. Or do you believe that Sarah Palin is not a public figure?

The 'high bar' in public figure defamation cases is in proving malice. The 'animosity' in the Reuters OP headline refers to Gov. Palin's endorsing of the Republican opponent of NY Times editor (James) Bennet's brother Democratic Colorado Senator Michael Bennet his 2016 re-election campaign and in his gun-control positions.

 

From the appeals court decision:

 

The (amended complaint) also includes allegations suggesting that (James) Bennet in particular was more likely than the average editor‐in‐chief to know the truth about the Loughner (2011 Arizona) shooting because he had reason to be personally hostile toward Palin, her political party, and her pro‐gun stance. Bennet’s brother, a Democrat, had served as a United States Senator for Colorado since 2009. In 2010, Senator Bennet was endorsed by two House members whose districts had been targeted by the SarahPAC (2011 political action committee) map.

Edited December 31, 20196 yr by SkyFax

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sarah Palin was my American heroine. I didn't give a monkey's about McCaine, but I'd like to have seen her as VP.

The abuse she received was as bad and as undeserved as that being given to Trump, IMO.

I would have like to seen her in lingerie

Well done Sarah. 

The deplorable are behind you, and so nice to see the usual hate mob whingeing 

A feeble attempt to keep her name in the spotlight and make herself relevant. Otherwise she might have to get a real job to earn a living .  

17 hours ago, mogandave said:

No, his biggest mistake was moving left in an effort appease the press. 
 

I was happy when he lost. If we’re going to have a leftist in the Whitehouse, better they’re not pretending to be a Republican. 

 

Nope. His downfall was when he admitted Obama was more savvy about the economy when things were looking ugly. I remember very clearly he tanked very quickly in the polls after he said it.

51 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Nope. His downfall was when he admitted Obama was more savvy about the economy when things were looking ugly. I remember very clearly he tanked very quickly in the polls after he said it.

I don't recall that, but if he said it he deserved to lose. Was he really the best the GOP could come up with?

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't recall that, but if he said it he deserved to lose. Was he really the best the GOP could come up with?

 

I don't have a dog in this fight about that. I am just saying what I recall was the beginning of the end. Same thing as other times "it's the economy stupid." 

 

 

Edited December 31, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

23 hours ago, mogandave said:

No, his biggest mistake was moving left in an effort appease the press. 
 

I was happy when he lost. If we’re going to have a leftist in the Whitehouse, better they’re not pretending to be a Republican. 

McCain a left winger? Ha Ha Ha Ha etc

On 12/31/2019 at 9:39 AM, Nyezhov said:

On 12/31/2019 at 8:27 AM, LomSak27 said:

I doubt she will win, but doubt she is paying for the lawyers anyway. 

Well she has already "won" half her case. Do you think her allegations of malice on the part of the NY Times are plausible? If not, why? Just trying to find out why you "doubt" she will win.

 

Also, whos paying for her lawyers?

 

dare you post factual reasoned replies on this forum.

 

you should have gone to law school.

50 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

dare you post factual reasoned replies on this forum.

 

you should have gone to law school.

Ya think a real lawyer would call a mere reinstatement of a case half a victory? I guess you believe that if she loses her lawsuit, as she most likely will, you and Nyezhov will count it as a complete triumph.

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 10:42 AM, mogandave said:

No, his biggest mistake was moving left in an effort appease the press. 
 

I was happy when he lost. If we’re going to have a leftist in the Whitehouse, better they’re not pretending to be a Republican. 

He always was a RINO