Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: Politico

A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly towards indications it was false.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.


Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.



Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/14/palin-new-york-times-judge-ruling-00008719

[ificandream]

1. Look for the right-wing bots to start the whines....

[rsdsharp]

11. I think the point of this case was always to try to strike down

Sullivan v. New York Times. It’s going to the Second Circuit whether the jury finds in favor of the Times, or the judge dismisses or enters a jnov after a verdict in favor of Palin.

The goal is to get it to the Supreme Court to rule against the actual malice standard. Or as Trump put it, to “loosen up the libel laws.”

[Mystery sage]

2. Ha-Ha

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

3. Poor SparkleMoose... back to Alaska...

Broke...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Sarah Palin v. New York Times: Judge to dismiss former governor's libel claim in rare case

This makes me smile

Link to tweet

NEW YORK — A judge on Monday indicated he will dismiss Sarah Palin’s libel case against the New York Times, saying she had not met the legal standard showing that the newspaper acted with “actual malice” in publishing a 2017 editorial that included an inaccurate claim about her.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff told the lawyers involved in the case that he will formally issue his ruling after a jury returns a verdict.

This breaking story will be updated.

[Thomas Hurt]

5. The christofascist don't seem to get that with their celebrity comes the end of their ability...

to whine and b*tch and sue over most of what the media say about her. If she would have stayed in AK she wouldn't have this problem.

[Auggie]

6. Lawyers had to know this. It's about publicity and another 15 minutes of fame for Palin.

[LuckyLib]

36. Absolutely. But who pays the attorney fees? Are those folks pro bono because they're seeking

their own 15 minutes of fame as well?

[Auggie]

39. Good question

I'd love to know too.

Look at it this way: the publicity Palin received to promote her "libel" was priceless. To buy that much exposure would have cost millions. Even if she or special interests paid six figures to mount a lawsuit it was deemed worthwhile. Her cult will love that she took on a media giant. Palin looks like a hero. And it promotes the agenda against the "liberal" media and the "liberal" courts. Win, win, win.

[Sneederbunk]

7. Wasilla Wipeout?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Some say Palin will appeal all way to SC to get Sullivan reversed & fundraise & (try to) be relevant

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Palin failed to prove malice

Link to tweet

[zuul]

10. Ha ha!

[Calista241]

12. This is exactly what she wants.

She wants the SC to revisit NYT v. Sullivan protections for the media.

[hadEnuf]

13. Palin should be on trial for her ads that agitated the Giffords shooting.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. Two Supreme Court justices, Gorsuch and Thomas, have hinted they want to change NYT v. Sullivan

This case was designed to get to the SCOTUS to try to overturn NYT v. Sullivan

Link to tweet

The case — the first libel lawsuit against the Times to go to trial in the United States in nearly 20 years — holds the potential to upend decades of precedent that have offered broad protections to media organizations when writing about public figures......

Yet two Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, have hinted that they would like to revisit the logic of Sullivan, meaning that even a loss in this trial could send shock waves through the media industry if an appeal makes its way to the high court.

Beyond the legal issues, the courtroom phase of this case is shining a not-always-flattering light on editing practices within one of the most prestigious media outlets in the world.

[FakeNoose]

15. Wouldn't the dismissal happen before the jury starts deliberating?

I don't understand why the judge threw the case out while the jury was still deliberating.

[asiliveandbreathe]

21. Sooooo many stories..for further clarity..maybe..

A jury started deliberating on Friday, but Rakoff was acting on a rule that allows him to dismiss a case if he believes that the plaintiff had failed to prove central aspects of its case. Rakoff said that, because his decision is likely to be appealed, he would not file his ruling until the jury reaches its verdict.

[FakeNoose]

24. Well then he hasn't really dismissed the case

He's just playing devil's advocate.

Sometimes judges don't like how the lawyer presents the case and the judge gets frustrated.

[asiliveandbreathe]

26. I have read all over the map//to dismiss, plans to dismiss, will dismiss

agrees to dismiss, throws out...WTH...seriously, this will be appealed - if gets to SCOTUS..plan all along??..awaiting jury verdict as judge says, "will be helpful for appeals court.."

This is all a great example of everyone trying to be the first to report..

[Mike Nelson]

16. Yay!

... hope it cost her a tidy sum!

[Ford_Prefect]

34. The people behind this suit have verrrrrrry deep pockets. They bought 3 Supremes and a President,

and didn't break a sweat. They own much of the planet, and more than few national governments, one way or another.

[catbyte]

17. Well, that makes sense. Nobody could ruin Palin's reputation more than Palin has herself.

Dumbass.

[livetohike]

18. Governor half term lasts half of a trial. She should just go

away now.

[Raven123]

19. I hope someone with a legal background can explain this. Tossing a case, but allowing deliberation?

[Marthe48]

20. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

>gasp< aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[question everything]

22. I don't understand. Why continue to deliberate a trial which was thrown out?

[FBaggins]

38. Think of what happens if he's reversed

The trial would have to be repeated with a new jury.

[question everything]

40. Thanks. I wonder how this decision may affect the jury - one way or the other

They are not sequestered, are they?

[FBaggins]

41. I presume they don't hear of it until after the verdict

Which has reportedly now been reached - against her

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. NYT v. Sullivan is on the hit list for some conservatives on the SCOTUS

Link to tweet

[Rebl2]

25. Is that

unusual for a judge to throw out a case while a jury is still deliberating the case?

[Turbineguy]

27. There are strong forces out to destroy the U.S.

She's little more than a useful idiot in this.

[pazzyanne]

28. Yes!!!

Palin's feeble attempt to become relative for another 15 minutes.

[11 Bravo]

29. Yet another epic fail by the Klondike Kardashian.

[Evolve Dammit]

30. Caribou Barbie is a loser again. So sad. Of course her and Toddie can always secede. That works....

What pathetic seditionists

[Emile]

31. Wondering if she has to pay lawyers fees for herself and the NYT?

[FBaggins]

37. Unlikely

The judge isn’t saying that the lawsuit was frivolous or that the allegedly defamatory statements were actually true. He’s just saying that the high bar to prove her claim wasn’t met.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

32. Tough luck Mama Grizzly

[oldsoftie]

33. Sooooo hard for a public figure to prove libel. Doomed from the start.

[Grins]

35. "...an appeal in the case to be inevitable." A win for Palin.

Yes.

And that’s a win for Palin. A appeal. The goal is to get this before the Supreme Court and to reverse New York Times v. Sullivan.

So who’s funding this for Palin? She’s too much of a grifter for paying for this with her own money.