Stock Groups

Sarah Palin set to battle New York Times at defamation trial -Breaking

[ad_1]

© Reuters. FILEPHOTO: Sarah Palin (former vice-presidential candidate) speaks during her campaign for U.S. Senate Candidate Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery, Alabama. This was September 21st 2017. REUTERS/Tami Chappell

Helen Coster and Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, (Reuters) – Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008, spent four-and-a half years fighting the New York Times for an editorial that falsely connected her to a fatal Arizona shooting, which left a U.S. Congresswoman severely wounded.

Palin plans to present evidence to jurors on Monday to prove that James Bennet and the former editor of its editorial pages defamed Palin.

It is rare that a major media company will defend its editorial policies before an American jury in the case before U.S. district Judge Jed Rakoff. After jury selection, opening statements may be made Monday.

Palin has to show that Palin had “actual malice” in his newspaper’s editorial writing.

“This lawsuit is over an editorial. Roy Gutterman of Syracuse University, a communications and law professor said that this is an area potentially hazardous. If we allow public officials to sue on editorials that they don’t agree with, what is the point?

Palin, 57 years old, accused the Times in a June 14, 2017 editorial of defaming Palin. It linked her political committee (PAC), to the shooting at a Arizona parking lot in 2011, which left six dead and wounded then-U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords. Palin seeks unspecified damages but court documents show that she has suffered $421,000 damage to her reputation.

It stated that “the link between political incitement and the 2011 shooting was obvious” after Palin’s PAC circulated a map putting 20 Democrats, Giffords included, in “stylized crossed hairs.”

After a shooting at Alexandria, Virginia, where U.S. Representative Steve Scalise was injured, the publication was done.

Palin objected that Bennet added language to an earlier draft, which was prepared by a Times colleague. Palin claimed that the additional material was consistent with Bennet’s preconceived narrative, and that he understood and knew the meaning of the words as an experienced editor.

The Times promptly corrected Bennet’s editorial and disclaimed any association between politics and Arizona’s shooting.

Benjamin Zipursky from Fordham University said that Bennet’s sudden onset of an emergency or panic mode after learning of the incident strongly suggests that he didn’t know of any error.

Zipursky stated that Palin’s “negligence, carelessness or gross negligence is not enough to win.”

SUPREME COURT PRECEDEENT

In New York Times v. Sullivan (a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision), the court adopted “actual malice”, which makes it very difficult for public figures and others to bring libel suits.

Current justices Clarence Thomas (conservative) and Neil Gorsuch (liberal) suggested that the standard be reexamined.

Palin stated in court papers that she would appeal the Sullivan case precedent if she is convicted.

Don Herzog, University of Michigan Law Professor, stated that Palin would find it difficult to prove that the Times “subjectively believed or disbelieved the truth of its presented facts.”

Herzog stated that “in context and considering the type of publication it was, it is an opinion matter and therefore not subject to defamation.”

Although the Times could be accused of office politics, it could also highlight the Times’s failure to adhere to deadlines.

The editorial said that, despite Palin’s attempts to show its “liberal bias” and views on gun controls, it was not about Palin and didn’t undermine her reputation.

“Gov. “Gov. Palin has flourished,” said the Times in a January 17 court filing.

Expect the trial to last at least five days.

Gutterman stated that he expected the Times to win.

Gutterman stated that while it was unfortunate that the incident occurred at the newspaper most known in the county on the deadline, even though a mistake doesn’t rise to malice.

[ad_2]