- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The New York Times may have difficulty defending itself against Sarah Palin's lawsuit. This will be worth watching.
The New York Times Is in Serious Trouble
John Hinderaker, PowerLine
. . . Ms. Palin can make a strong argument that the Times editorialists knew that their smear was a lie, based on reporting done by the Times itself. (The editorialists’ defense likely will have to be that they don’t read their own newspaper.) But at a minimum, it seems that the Times editorial was published with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. It was a product of sheer hatred toward Palin.
The “actual malice” standard that applies to defamation cases brought by public figures is often considered to be impossibly high. It has little to do with the usual meaning of the word “malice.” Rather, it requires that a defendant publish a statement that he knows to be false, or about which he has no idea whether it is true or not, and publishes it anyway (“reckless disregard”). Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the Times is the rare case where it is hard to see how the paper will be able to mount a defense.
It seems to me that the weakest aspect of Palin’s lawsuit is that she brought it in New York. If the case goes to trial, it likely will be heard by a jury consisting entirely of Democrats who share the New York Times’s antipathy toward Palin. Regardless of the facts, I think there is a serious risk that such a jury may return an unjust verdict against her. I sincerely hope her lawyers know something that I don’t.
The New York Times Is in Serious Trouble
John Hinderaker, PowerLine
. . . Ms. Palin can make a strong argument that the Times editorialists knew that their smear was a lie, based on reporting done by the Times itself. (The editorialists’ defense likely will have to be that they don’t read their own newspaper.) But at a minimum, it seems that the Times editorial was published with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. It was a product of sheer hatred toward Palin.
The “actual malice” standard that applies to defamation cases brought by public figures is often considered to be impossibly high. It has little to do with the usual meaning of the word “malice.” Rather, it requires that a defendant publish a statement that he knows to be false, or about which he has no idea whether it is true or not, and publishes it anyway (“reckless disregard”). Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the Times is the rare case where it is hard to see how the paper will be able to mount a defense.
It seems to me that the weakest aspect of Palin’s lawsuit is that she brought it in New York. If the case goes to trial, it likely will be heard by a jury consisting entirely of Democrats who share the New York Times’s antipathy toward Palin. Regardless of the facts, I think there is a serious risk that such a jury may return an unjust verdict against her. I sincerely hope her lawyers know something that I don’t.
