Sarah Palin sues New York Times

[babylonsister]

The grifter is at it again...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/27/media/sarah-palin-nyt/index.html


Sarah Palin sues New York Times
by Dylan Byers @CNNMoney June 27, 2017: 10:18 PM ET


The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate filed a lawsuit against the Times on Tuesday alleging that a recent editorial falsely portrayed her as responsible for inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.

"Today, Sarah Palin took a stand against The New York Times Company by filing a lawsuit which seeks to hold The Times accountable for stating that Governor Palin is part of a 'sickeningly familiar pattern' of politically motivated violence and that she incited the horrific 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords," lawyers for Palin said in a statement.

Palin is seeking more than $75,000 in damages, according to the lawsuit.

The Times editorial, published in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise earlier this month, accused Palin of "political incitement" ahead of the 2011 Giffords shooting, the lawsuit says. The editorial wrongly claimed an ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs," according to the lawsuit.

The Times issued a correction a day later, noting that "no such link was established" between Palin's ad and the shooting, and that the ad in question "depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs."

Still, the Times said that the error did not "undercut or weaken the argument of the piece."

Palin's lawyers say otherwise. In the lawsuit, they claim that "the Times conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs. Palin to an award of punitive damages."

Reached for comment, a Times spokesperson told CNNMoney that the paper intended to defend itself against Palin's claims.

"We have not reviewed the claim yet but will defend against any claim vigorously," the spokesperson said.

[NurseJackie]

1. Sarah Palin can go FUCK HERSELF!

[babylonsister]

2. What you said!!! nt

[ProfessorGAC]

3. + A Million

Baseless lawsuit.

[MoonRiver]

4. Grifter must be getting low on cash.

She lost her bid to "serve" in Liar 'n Thief's administration, so on to Plan B.

[malaise]

7. My first thought

[SDJay]

11. Exactly What I Thought.

I've read that she's - surprise - a total disaster with her money and had pissed most of it away already.

Hopefully this is the last gasp of any public exposure for this asshole who's done a lot of damage to this country.

[tblue37]

22. Precisely! Trump gave Omarosa a position, so his standards are limbo stick low,

yet she couldn't make it.

OTOH, I imagine he feared she might encroach on his space in the spotlight, and he freaks out about that with anyone.

[mreilly]

18. Yep, and it sure is sad...

.... how even she is too much of a shitshow for Trump to appoint to anything. I mean, look at the pathetic ragtag pack of losers, liars, crooks and cheats he managed to dig up - people so abominably shitty it seemed as if he was deliberately picking the worst of the bunch. And poor old desperate "Oooh! Look at me! Hey everyone! Over here! I am TOO relevant!" Sarah Palin was too pathetic to make the cut.

Now THAT'S a burn!

[MoonRiver]

20. Seriously! Palin is absolutely at the bottom of the barrel for grifters!

[Dem2]

8. "smart liberals"

Where it's that quoted from?

What are you trying to say here?

[malaise]

9. Enjoy your stay

[EffieBlack]

10. Not at all

As a public figure, she has to show not only that the item was false, but that it was published with actual malice.

The fact that it was corrected immediately undercuts her claim - courts usually view retractions as dispositive proof of an absence of malice.

[EffieBlack]

14. Are you an attorney?

Have you ever tried a libel or defamation case? Have you studied the case law and precedent on this issue?

If not, perhaps you shouldn't be so certain of your understanding of what malice actually is in a legal context, the legal impact of retractions in libel cases, and how courts treat suits by public figures.

Enjoy your stay on DU.

[rsdsharp]

28. The case that established "actual malice"

was Sullivan v. New York Times. In this context actual malice is publishing something you know to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity. It's a tough hurdle.

[EffieBlack]

32. Yes, Sullivan is the seminal case on actual malice

But numerous subsequent cases, following the Sullivan precedent, have found that a retraction is proof that the story, while false, was not published with actual malice.

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual malice - which is defined not as any ill will toward or dislike of the plaintiff but of publication with knowledge that the information was false or reckless disregard of the truth. In most states and in most courts, a retraction - especially an immediate one - can be proof of an absence of malice.

In fact, it is Palin who faces a tough hurdle, not the Times. Not only would she have great difficulty proving that the writer published the piece with knowledge that the information was incorrect - even without a retraction - the retraction greatly complicates her claim.

She likely won't even make it past a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss.

[rsdsharp]

34. Of course its the plaintiff who faces the hurdle of actual malice.

I don't see how you could have possibly have read my post as attempting to place the burden on the Times.

[SweetieD]

15. Yeah she won't get past the malice part. Especially since she did commission the violent ad.

I mean it is not as if the NYT made up that part. That part was 100 percent true.

But this isn't about winning. This is about the GOPs war on the media and this tough act is part of it.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Motion to Dismiss

Palin can't prove as a public figure, the NY Times damaged her already-damaged reputation.

[MurrayDelph]

16. "Damaged her reputation"?

That IS her reputation!

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Understood. Practically redundant if not descriptive.

[tblue37]

19. NYT has the money to fight this, but I am not sure Palin does any more.

I suspect she is just looking for publicity and to garner sympathy from die hard RW fans so she can keep appearing on the RW welfare circuit to give word salad speeches.

She needs to stay in the news to keep those paid appearance offers coming in.

That is especially true now, because she is starting to show her age, and the RW considers a woman's looks to be the repository of her essence and her value. Being pretty was always Palin's main selling point, the core of her Republican "star power."

[MoonRiver]

21. Maybe she's grifting for the ten grand needed for a face lift?

Then she may be able to continue the scam.

[tblue37]

24. She might already have had the facelift. Her facial skin is stretched pretty

darned tight.

OTOH, she has dieted down to be very thin, so that tight look in her face could be from weight loss.

Zsa Zsa Gabor once said that when a woman reaches a certain age, she has to choose between her face and her bottom (she actually said "fanny," for the alliteration, but that word has a different and ruder meaning to Brits). Then she said, "So sit down, dear, and have a lovely smile."

[DefenseLawyer]

23. An editorial?

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, their opinion, man.

[Stuart G]

25. Seems to me, this is not about $75,000..only about the publicity the suit gets.

Sara must be in trouble.....needs publicity.. 75 thousand, won't even cover legal fees..

.Say it ain't so...poor Sara the stupid one, needs publicity...oh my..

[BigMin28]

26. "Sara the stupid one needs publicity."

My thoughts exactly. She is trying to get her name out there. Poor little Twit. Still trying to relevant, and still missing the mark.

[Corvo Bianco]

29. I figured the $75k figure that was just so that NYT would settle.

NYT lawyers going to trial probably costs a bit more than $75k. What a pickle.

[EffieBlack]

33. This case is too thin to even make it to trial

Talk about "frivolous" lawsuits ...

[lpbk2713]

27. The poor dear is still trying to grab some headlines.

[dembotoz]

30. new gop tactic? sue on any and everything?

[ProfessorGAC]

31. What Did I Miss?

Some troll blitz this thread? I got a "post removed" to a + reply to another poster
Then, like 5 other posts removed?
A Palin fan attacked DU?