Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Sarah Palin faced another defeat in her defamation case against the New York Times, marking a significant setback for the former Republican vice-presidential candidate. A federal jury in New York concluded deliberations in just two hours, ultimately ruling that the newspaper was not liable for alleged defamatory statements made in a 2017 editorial concerning gun control issues. Upon leaving the Manhattan courthouse, Palin appeared visibly disappointed.
This case attracted considerable attention, not only due to the prominent figures involved but also because it raised important questions about free speech, particularly amid the ongoing contentious political climate influenced by figures like Donald Trump, who often labels mainstream media as the “enemy of the people.”
The legal proceedings underscored the complex issue of malice in defamation claims, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate that harmful information was disseminated either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
The latest verdict followed a retrial mandated after a federal appeals court overturned a previous 2022 decision in favor of the Times. Palin, who previously served as Alaska’s governor, brought the lawsuit against the newspaper and former editorial page editor James Bennet, stemming from an article that incorrectly implied she may have incited a mass shooting in January 2011 in Arizona.
This tragic event resulted in six fatalities and serious injuries to Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords during an open community event in Tucson. The editorial in question was published in the wake of another violent incident in 2017, where Republican congressman Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball practice by an individual with a history of anti-Republican sentiment.
Bennet testified that he added language linking the shooting to a map produced by Palin’s political action committee, which had placed crosshairs over images of Giffords and other Democrats, while under tight deadlines. Although the New York Times issued a correction and an apology approximately 14 hours after the editorial’s publication, Palin argued that the apology was insufficient as it did not specifically mention her.
Despite the emotional toll, Palin expressed gratitude for her family and life after the verdict, though she revealed she had yet to consult her legal team about the possibility of an appeal. Bennet, who was emotional during his testimony, conveyed remorse over the misinformation and emphasized his commitment to addressing the mistake swiftly.
Palin’s lawyers contended that the initial apology lacked the necessary depth, while the legal representative for the Times stressed the high burden of proof facing Palin as a public figure. The defense emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting anything beyond an honest mistake had occurred.
While Palin’s legal team argued that the inaccurate editorial substantially impacted her life, the second circuit highlighted that Palin’s chance to contest the ruling based on the malice standard was waived due to the timing of her challenge. This ongoing legal saga has been interpreted by Palin and other conservatives as a potential avenue to revisit the 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established the “actual malice” standard in defamation cases.
Reuters contributed reporting
Source
www.theguardian.com