• 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]

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
40,860
Reaction score
54,771
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Article Here.

Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times for accusing her of incitement in a mass shooting.

In the defamation case, Mrs Palin says the newspaper published a statement about her that it "knew to be false".

A 14 June editorial appeared to tie Mrs Palin to a 2011 shooting spree that left congresswoman Gabby Giffords seriously wounded and six others dead.

Mrs Palin is reportedly seeking more than $75,000 (£58,000) in damages.


The former Alaska governor's lawyers argue "the Times' conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, wilfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs Palin".

The lawsuit says the newspaper displayed "blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs Palin to an award of punitive damages".

The legal action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues the publication "violated the law and its own policies".

The editorial, headlined "America's Lethal Politics", was published on the day a gunman opened fire on Republican congressmen as they played baseball in Alexandria, Virginia, critically injuring a Louisiana legislator.

The article said an advert from Mrs Palin's political action committee had placed "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs".

A day later, the New York Times issued a correction, noting that "no such link was established" between the Palin ad and the shooting of Gabby Giffords in Arizona.

The newspaper also conceded that the ad in question "depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs".

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?
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

It's spelled 'attention', not 'defamation'.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

It's spelled 'attention', not 'defamation'.

So you support a national newspaper being able to print outright lies about someone, retract it and expect to get away with it with no repercussions??
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

yep this is clearly a case of libel and slander.

even though they retracted it later the damage was already done.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

I think she might. I don't think that their apology the next day is sufficient. They need to be kicked in the balls a little so maybe they will edit their stories a little more closely for accuracy.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

It appears you have learned and improving as a poster.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

It's spelled 'attention', not 'defamation'.

you once again prove that you have no clue about what is going on. at this point I have to think you are doing it on purpose.

this is a clear case of libel and slander.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

Can the original opinion piece be found anywhere?
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

I think she might. I don't think that their apology the next day is sufficient. They need to be kicked in the balls a little so maybe they will edit their stories a little more closely for accuracy.

This was written by the editorial staff, not some junior reporter. You would think that people that have reached that status would know better. I'm sure it was not reviewed by their legal staff before it went to print.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?
The irony is breathtaking. This is the same Palin that defamed Obama in 2008, saying he had terrorist connections -- and now seeks compensation for alleged defamation?

From the NY Times article: Sarah Palin Sues New York Times, Claiming Editorial Defamed Her

The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.



Ms. Palin said in the lawsuit that The Times’s response “did not approach the degree of the retraction and apology necessary and warranted by The Times’s false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited murder.”
In a statement, a spokeswoman for The Times said, “We have not reviewed the claim yet but will defend against any claim vigorously.”
Unless Palin can prove actual malice standard -- that "it was false" and that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not," she loses. The fact that the Times printed a correction undercuts Palin's case.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

Can the original opinion piece be found anywhere?

Here is the offensive portion of the editorial:

In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But no connection to that crime was ever established.

The first edition of the story did not have the last line, and it was added to try and diminish the damage. Later they added a retraction that stated that no link between Palin and Loughner had ever been established.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

So you support a national newspaper being able to print outright lies about someone, retract it and expect to get away with it with no repercussions??

What outright lies? Maybe Palin shouldn't paint crosshairs on democrats, what do you think?
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

you once again prove that you have no clue about what is going on. at this point I have to think you are doing it on purpose.

this is a clear case of libel and slander.

She didn't paint crosshairs over democrats then? That's your argument?
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

I care nothing for the New York Slimes but I don't think it's a good case. She's a public figure who voluntarily stepped into contentious politics so you gotta expect that things are going to be said about you that you don't like. Besides the proof required for a public figure to prove defamation is nearly insurmountable otherwise we'd probably have a lot more of these lawsuits.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?

I know how she feels, just because I Vote in a particular way, I'm grouped with anything tat goes bad to Republicans.

~ Sad
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

What outright lies? Maybe Palin shouldn't paint crosshairs on democrats, what do you think?

Was it similar to this one put out by Democrats ?

dccc-target-map.jpg
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

I care nothing for the New York Slimes but I don't think it's a good case. She's a public figure who voluntarily stepped into contentious politics so you gotta expect that things are going to be said about you that you don't like. Besides the proof required for a public figure to prove defamation is nearly insurmountable otherwise we'd probably have a lot more of these lawsuits.

Good point.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

Here is the offensive portion of the editorial:



The first edition of the story did not have the last line, and it was added to try and diminish the damage. Later they added a retraction that stated that no link between Palin and Loughner had ever been established.

If what you say is true (that the change was the addition of the last line), then Palin's case will almost certainly be thrown out. Personally, I think that kind of writing is lazy and sleazy, but unless the writer specifically claims causation then Palin doesn't have a case. Palin's PAC did create a map with targets on it (so that's fact), so the claimed "defamation" is one of proximity: placing two facts next to each other with the intent of leading the reader to form a connection.

Or as the saying we've been hearing so frequently goes: awful but legal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

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?
That was rather dumb of NYT on multiple fronts, one of which is allowing her to come back in the limelight.

I'm no lawyer but it seems like if she can prove damages she will win seeing how they retracted the editorial.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

She didn't paint crosshairs over democrats then? That's your argument?

LOL you didn't even read the story. the NYT even retracted that part as well.
you seriously don't know what you are talking about do you?

I suggest reading the article and informing yourself of the topic.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

If what you say is true (that the change was the addition of the last line), then Palin's case will almost certainly be thrown out. Personally, I think that kind of writing is lazy and sleazy, but unless the writer specifically claims causation then Palin doesn't have a case. Palin's PAC did create a map with targets on it (so that's fact), so the claimed "defamation" is one of proximity: placing two facts next to each other with the intent of leading the reader to form a connection.

Or as the saying we've been hearing so frequently goes: awful but legal.

Funny how Republicans don't like it when they're misrepresented ... interesting. ;)
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

So you support a national newspaper being able to print outright lies about someone, retract it and expect to get away with it with no repercussions??
Yes, that's called freedom of the press -- which there is long case law on the topic of libel with respect to newspapers. For a newspaper to be liable, plaintiff must prove that it was false, that the paper knew it was false when they printed it and it was done with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

There is no evidence that that standard was breeches in this case.
 
Re: Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

Funny how Republicans don't like it when they're misrepresented ... interesting. ;)

Fox News' entire model is defamation through proximity. It's not any less sleazy when it's done to Republicans.
 
Back
Top Bottom