Jonathan Stempel and Jody Godoy

NEW YORK (Reuters] – Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and Republican U.S. presidential candidate for 2008, was brought before the New York Times in a high-anticipated case against defamation. The trial could be a test of long-standing American protections for news media.

Palin, aged 57, sued over an editorial in 2017 that wrongly linked her political rhetoric with a shooting at Arizona’s Capitol that killed six and left Gabby Giffords severely wounded. This was later rectified by the newspaper.

Palin’s attorney Shane Vogt stated in his opening statement that Palin was facing an “uphill struggle” to prove the editorial was true and that it reflected “history bias” towards her and other Republicans.

David Axelrod (the Times’ lawyer) countered that the editorial tried to make both Democrats and Republicans accountable for inflamatory rhetoric and stated that the paper acted quickly to rectify its error.

A Manhattan federal court trial could be a chance to test the 1964 landmark decision of New York Times v. Sullivan by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case made it very difficult for Palin and other public figures to prove defamation.

Palin must present convincing and clear evidence that Palin knew the Times was lying or had reckless disregard of the truth to be victorious. Unspecified damages are sought by Palin for the alleged damage to her reputation.

Palin indicated that she will challenge the Sullivan decision on appeal if it is not overturned by two conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.

What am I trying accomplish? Palin said to reporters, “Justice for people who expect the truth” as she entered courthouse.

The headline read “America’s Lethal Politics,” and was published following a shooting at Alexandria, Virginia, in which Steve Scalise (a member of Congress’ Republican leadership) was injured.

In the editorial, it was questioned if the shooting showed how vicious American politics have become.

Then, it stated that “the connection to political incitement had been clear”. Jared Lee Loughner was then able to open fire on Palin’s 2011 shooting. Palin’s political actions committee circulated a map which placed Gifford and 19 others Democrats in “stylized crosseshairs”.

James Bennet was a former editorial page editor and is now a defendant. Elizabeth Williamson had prepared the draft with the dispute wording. Elizabeth Williamson was a fellow member of the Times editorial boards.

“The key will be showing how the editorial came together,” said Timothy Zick, a professor and First Amendment specialist at William & Mary Law School. “Essentially did the Times conduct its research before publishing?”

COVID DELAY

Vogt Palin’s lawyer stated, “We are not here to win your vote for Governor Palin nor any of her policy,” and instead asked that the Times be held responsible for a “particularly horrible” editorial.

Bennet was portrayed by him as “highly educated career journalists” who understood the truth of what he had added, but did not alter them.

Vogt stated that Vogt had his own narrative and stuck with it.

Axelrod stated that Bennet didn’t intend to suggest Loughner had acted due to Palin or that readers inferred a connection and that Bennet would be testifying about “exactly” what he meant.

Axelrod said that nobody at the Times had ever harbored animosity toward Palin. The dispute was contained in two sentences of a 12-paragraph editorial.

He said, “The editorial wasn’t even about her.”

Williamson is still employed at The Times and was first to testify in the trial.

She stated that Bennet would be responsible for fact checking passages he had added and that she hadn’t known of any association between Virginia shootings and political rhetoric.

Williamson was asked by Bennet to talk about an email he sent just before the editorial. In it, he wondered if hate speech had played a part and suggested that maybe before the Giffords shooting.

Because Palin was positive for coronavirus, the trial was delayed until Jan. 24.

Palin stated publicly that she won’t be receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In court, she wore a dark mask.

The Times hasn’t suffered loss in defamation cases in over 50 years.

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice of the Supreme Court has called for Sullivan’s case to be reexamined. He said that little historical evidence suggests the malice standard was derived from the U.S. Constitutions First and 14th Amendments.

Neil Gorsuch another justice stated the standard was an “ironclad subsidies for the publication falsehoods” for a growing array of media outlets that can spread sensational information without regard to the truth.