• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation [W:290]

Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

JasperL said:
Right, I get all that - it's obvious.

But if Palin sues and wins, it is "government interference" that allows her to do so - laws against slander/libel, and a court system that allows her to sue for damages, with the verdict imposed by the state, enforced if necessary by the state.

Hence, the libel laws imposed by government are acceptable only to the extent that they do not infringe on our freedom of speech and the press. The 1A sets the bounds of those laws, what they can prohibit and what they cannot.
Click to expand...

Specious argument as you do not say much of anything about other rights being infringed. Conclusion: your complaints in this instance are political, not constitutional in nature.

Government in this instance is doing no more and no less than judging the damage caused by one party to another. The bars for libel are high and for a public figure are higher yet. They are not interfering they are protecting a citizen. That's why we have courts.
 
Mr Person said:
Nope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...st-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.24421612e127
Click to expand...

Amazing

""Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States," Judge Jed Rakoff wrote in an opinion dismissing the case. "In the exercise of that freedom, mistakes will be made, some of which will be hurtful to others.""

First that is not true and should have no bearing of the libel. Freedom of speech does not give one license to publish false or your unverified slanderous conjecture as fact."

"At the hearing earlier this month, Bennet told Palin attorney Ken Turkel that the editorial was written under a tight deadline, and that he didn't know whether Loughner had seen the map from Palin's PAC, nor was he aware of the reporting indicating that there was no clear link between Loughner and political incitement. "

So they made up a slanderous story to try and mitigate the fact that a leftist had just attacked Republican congressmen. And I wonder how many clicks they got out of it.

And last I checked no one even got fired for it.
 
TheGoverness said:
Article Here.



Regardless how this case goes, it was pretty goddamn stupid for the NYT to try and link Sarah Palin with the Gabby Giffords shooting. Absolutely ridiculous.

Thoughts? Do you think Sarah Palin has a good case?
Click to expand...


I recall the incidence. Sarah Palin's criticism of Gifford was indeed provocative. I recall Sarah had Gaby Gifford in the crosshairs in her attack post. There was much fallout after the attempted assassination of Gabby Gifford and many pointed a finger at Palin for her vindictive targeting of Congresswoman, Gabby Gifford. I don't know if the NYT is right or wrong, but in my personal opinion, Sarah's small-minded spiteful post against Giffords played an inflammatory role.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/media/sarah-palin-lawsuit-new-york-times.html

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin against The New York Times, saying Ms. Palin’s complaint failed to show that a mistake in an editorial was made maliciously.

“What we have here is an editorial, written and rewritten rapidly in order to voice an opinion on an immediate event of importance, in which are included a few factual inaccuracies somewhat pertaining to Mrs. Palin that are very rapidly corrected,” Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan said in his ruling. “Negligence this may be; but defamation of a public figure it plainly is not.”
Click to expand...
 
Stinger said:
Amazing

""Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States," Judge Jed Rakoff wrote in an opinion dismissing the case. "In the exercise of that freedom, mistakes will be made, some of which will be hurtful to others.""

First that is not true and should have no bearing of the libel. Freedom of speech does not give one license to publish false or your unverified slanderous conjecture as fact."

"At the hearing earlier this month, Bennet told Palin attorney Ken Turkel that the editorial was written under a tight deadline, and that he didn't know whether Loughner had seen the map from Palin's PAC, nor was he aware of the reporting indicating that there was no clear link between Loughner and political incitement. "

So they made up a slanderous story to try and mitigate the fact that a leftist had just attacked Republican congressmen. And I wonder how many clicks they got out of it.

And last I checked no one even got fired for it.
Click to expand...

What a dumbass judge making excuses for the NYT. Hey, judge, it's not your job to make up excuses out of thin air for the defendant.
 
Fishking said:
What a dumbass judge making excuses for the NYT.
Click to expand...
The NYT published a correction the next day.
Besides since the NYT is a member of the lamestream media, no one really believes what they print anyway.
No harm, no foul.

Hey, judge, it's not your job to make up excuses out of thin air for the defendant.
Click to expand...
If only you could have been on Sarah's defense team.
I'm certain your words would have carried the day.
I think in a libel suit malice has to be proven, so it was an uphill battle anyway.
It's not as if this editorial actually hurt Palin's reputation.
It might have even helped with her fundraising efforts, attacked by the lieberal NYT and all that.
 
Fishking said:
What a dumbass judge making excuses for the NYT. Hey, judge, it's not your job to make up excuses out of thin air for the defendant.
Click to expand...

It's good to see that The NYT can still afford a to buy a couple of dishonest judges every now and then.
 
radioman said:
The NYT published a correction the next day.
Besides since the NYT is a member of the lamestream media, no one really believes what they print anyway.
No harm, no foul.

If only you could have been on Sarah's defense team.
I'm certain your words would have carried the day.
I think in a libel suit malice has to be proven, so it was an uphill battle anyway.
It's not as if this editorial actually hurt Palin's reputation.
It might have even helped with her fundraising efforts, attacked by the lieberal NYT and all that.
Click to expand...

Publishing such a story without evidence is all the evidence you need to prove malice. A retraction doesn't remedy that, especially in modern times. Once something is put out on the internet, it's always out there.
 
Fishking said:
Publishing such a story without evidence is all the evidence you need to prove malice. A retraction doesn't remedy that, especially in modern times. Once something is put out on the internet, it's always out there.
Click to expand...

It was an EDITORIAL.....you know an opinion piece....no evidence needed.
There are thousands---millions maybe?---of sites that publish opinions.
Why does Sarah oppose free speech?
 
Score one for the Gray Lady.
 
Quazimodo said:
It's good to see that The NYT can still afford a to buy a couple of dishonest judges every now and then.
Click to expand...

Gawd, the US is a crappy country, innit? Trump arrived just in the nick. Think even He will be enough to turn it around?
 
Grand Mal said:
Gawd, the US is a crappy country, innit? Trump arrived just in the nick. Think even He will be enough to turn it around?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, Ol' Salt, yes it is! I'd sneak over the border to Canada if I thought I could find a real Doctor.

Your Trump piece is cute, but he's the only horse in the race...he's got to win. If he tosses a losing flop, I'll swear to God I'm moving to Russia. Maybe I'll be able to buy a couple of those big tittied internet princesses and let them service me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. Call me the eternal optimist.
 
radioman said:
It was an EDITORIAL.....you know an opinion piece....no evidence needed.
There are thousands---millions maybe?---of sites that publish opinions.
Why does Sarah oppose free speech?
Click to expand...

Slander and libel are free speech?
 
radioman said:
It was an EDITORIAL.....you know an opinion piece....no evidence needed.
There are thousands---millions maybe?---of sites that publish opinions.
Why does Sarah oppose free speech?
Click to expand...

OH that's right editorials don't have to have any basis in fact especially at the NYT.

You don't have the free speech to defame someone.
 
Quazimodo said:
Yes it is, Ol' Salt, yes it is! I'd sneak over the border to Canada if I thought I could find a real Doctor.

Your Trump piece is cute, but he's the only horse in the race...he's got to win. If he tosses a losing flop, I'll swear to God I'm moving to Russia. Maybe I'll be able to buy a couple of those big tittied internet princesses and let them service me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. Call me the eternal optimist.
Click to expand...

Got to win? How can he not? A whole panel full of Russian judges holding up 9.9's for him pissing in the pool, how can he not win? Except, there's a different vibe around the Trumpster these days now the heady, triumphant post-election high has faded. Hesitation from those judges. Subdued murmur in the home-team stands. Hints of nostalgia for the dozen or so alternatives who failed to excite the great unwashed masses but may have actually been able to do something.
Good luck in Russia. The hockey's not as good and their neighbours not as entertaining but they like conservatives and gas is 'way cheaper than here.
 
TheGoverness said:
Article Here.



Regardless how this case goes, it was pretty goddamn stupid for the NYT to try and link Sarah Palin with the Gabby Giffords shooting. Absolutely ridiculous.

Thoughts? Do you think Sarah Palin has a good case?
Click to expand...

This is very old news. Also, the link does not connect. Are you sure this lawsuit is really happening? I recall the Giffords shooting. The Palin Crosshairs coverage was all over the news, not just the NY Times. Many of the morning talk shows also had this coverage.
 
Grand Mal said:
Got to win? How can he not? A whole panel full of Russian judges holding up 9.9's for him pissing in the pool, how can he not win? Except, there's a different vibe around the Trumpster these days now the heady, triumphant post-election high has faded. Hesitation from those judges. Subdued murmur in the home-team stands. Hints of nostalgia for the dozen or so alternatives who failed to excite the great unwashed masses but may have actually been able to do something.
Good luck in Russia. The hockey's not as good and their neighbours not as entertaining but they like conservatives and gas is 'way cheaper than here.
Click to expand...

Well, I've got to agree! The subdued murmurs in the Phoenix rally have me a little worried. And the fund-raising really sucks. And the goddam dropping unemployment numbers are gonna make it go tough on those 7-11 stores. And the Wall, that's really gonna piss off all those drug lords. Wow, we're just going to the dogs.

Say, I thought hockey was a game for girls. Those little plaid skirts and knee socks. I just love braids and ponytails.

PM me your mailing address. When I get to Moscow, I'll send you a postcard and a couple of autographed pucks. Cheap gas, huh? I'm in!
 
Media_Truth said:
This is very old news. Also, the link does not connect. Are you sure this lawsuit is really happening? I recall the Giffords shooting. The Palin Crosshairs coverage was all over the news, not just the NY Times. Many of the morning talk shows also had this coverage.
Click to expand...

And they were just as wrong back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom