Home » Judge dismisses Palin defamation lawsuit against Times

Comments

Judge dismisses Palin defamation lawsuit against <i>Times</i> — 28 Comments

  1. A travesty of justice ruling.

    The Judge is an activist liberal judge.

    A Bill Clinton appointee.

    “In 2002, Rakoff declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional”.

    He frequently stands in for an absent judge on the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 87% of that courts rulings are routinely reversed by the SC.

    Let the words out of his own mouth convict him;

    “An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous. If its deployment does not rest on facts – cold, hard, solid facts, established either by admissions or by trials – it serves no lawful or moral purpose and is simply an engine of oppression.”

  2. Is it any wonder why celebrities, athletes and politicians often hate the media with the fiery passion of a thousand suns?

  3. Geoffrey Britain:

    I don’t like the ruling, but that’s because I have some problems with Sullivan and the relevant post-Sullivan case law on which the present ruling is based. The ruling more or less follows much of the case law. SCOTUS has never definitively established the parameters for “reckless disregard of the truth” in cases where media outlets are sued by public figures. But this case’s ruling falls pretty well into many of the post-Sullivan rulings on the subject. It’s not an outlier.

  4. Do the same journalistic standards apply to editorials? Should the same standards apply? I read editorials and opinions all over the internet that fall anywhere from dubious to outrageous. There are people who have written that Bill and Hillary Clinton killed people. Others that Obama was not born in America. There are a lot of ugly articles on Democratic Underground and Breitbart.

    At what point does freedom of the press become reckless? It’s an interesting question. But if Palin were to win this suit it would definitely open up many lawsuits of similar nature. Do we want that? Especially when, in this case, the NY Times corrected the editorial within a couple days. Some news outlets [smaller ones no doubt] wouldn’t do that.

  5. Montage:

    I read the opinion rather quickly and I’m doing this from memory, but the ruling dealt with the question of whether editorials are included. They are, if they talk about certain happenings the truth or falsehood of which can be ascertained, and this one did.

    I agree with you about being cautious about opening the press up for many lawsuits of this nature.

    However, the Times only corrected the story after a big hue and cry went up in which even its fellow liberal press was criticizing it for its false statements. And even then (as I wrote here), the paper allowed some of its allegations to stand:

    The Times’ later “correction” of the story–published after a large public hue and cry had ensued–corrected the second fact but not the first, which was no longer stated so overtly but was nevertheless still implied as a possibility.

    See the link for more.

  6. neo-neocon

    True about the correction coming after a hue and cry. What happens is that NY Times and WaPo tend to lean toward and peddle false stories that complete the kind of narrative they want to present to their readers. I say this as a NYT reader. If presented with dubious facts of a Democrat they would likely pass on it. But a similar fact that concerns a high profile Republican would not get as much scrutiny.

    I appreciate the press going after politicians from both parties when it is warranted. But the NYT and WaPo only make fools of themselves when they jump on every speculative story that implicates politicians they clearly dislike. I’d like to think there was a time in the press when this did not happen but I don’t think that was ever the case. Maybe a bit for a period from the mid to late 20th century at some news outlets?

  7. “Especially when, in this case, the NY Times corrected the editorial within a couple days.”

    I won’t bore “Montage” with the full “The lie goes around the world three times ” epigram since any decently educated and informed person is expected to know it.

    And understand it and its import.

    Back to school, Montage.

  8. I never thought the case had even the tiniest ghost of a chance, and so haven’t thought about it nor invested any mental energy whatsoever in its ultra-predictable outcome.

    No elaboration seems germane, though I suppose I could self-indulgently talk about what I learned when serving on three juries — two of which I swayed.

  9. Burying the lede?

    A court determined that the New York Times editorial staff was negligent.

    Next time some wacko – any leftist, but I repeat myself, refers to the Times the answer is: “Oh? You mean the newspaper that a court found was negligent?”

  10. vanderleun:

    You are arguing apples and oranges here.

    The question is not whether such a lie is politically effective as propaganda, even with a subsequent correction (or slight correction). It is.

    The question is whether it is legally actionable. They are two quite different things, and from his/her comments, Montage seems quite aware of that fact.

  11. Perhaps someone can explain to me why the knowledge (or lack thereof) of a particular employee of the Times, who is not being sued personally, constitutes a defense for the Times institutionally. It would seem to me that if ANY employee of the Times had knowledge of the false editorial publication, and of the falsity thereof, that knowledge should be imputed to the Times as an institution, regardless of the purported lack of knowledge of OTHER employees of the Times.

  12. The media is protected because it supposedly performs the important function of keeping track of the powerful. This is an important function so if they’re doing it ineffectively, by passing along false – in this case, immediately provably false – information, isn’t that malpractice? Why shouldn’t that be actionable. The malice standard was not objectively applied in this case. Political judge protected political reporter. But aside from that, the malice standard that was appropriate in the 1970s is no longer appropriate for a couple of reasons:
    1. It’s so easy these days to check the facts that careless fact checking, choosing not to make the effort to look into the other side of the story, is obviously malicious;
    2. The media is openly partisan now whereas back in the days of NYT v. Sullivan there was the presumption of objectivity.

  13. When busted, the MSM says they’re not crooks, they’re stupid.
    Okay. So far, okay.
    But they don’t seem to think of the result of having a mile-high stack of professions of stupidity.
    Eventually, we’ll have to take their word for that.

  14. Humans are easy to fool, this is merely one case in point.

    Why do people still trust in humans? Because that’s how they were brought up.

  15. I am a journalist not a lawyer and a journalist who has worked under Draconian British libel laws, so in spite of myself, my instinctive reaction was: “Wow, what a reasonable judge!”
    Editorials are written by bumptious boys fresh out of college, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    What seems to be at issue is malice, which is the core of British libel law too, not truth or falsehood as many assume. This is because truth is more damaging to a reputation. If you print that a man is a drunk who beats his wife and it’s true the consequences will be far worse for the man named than if he turns out to be an uxorious tee-totaller.

    So what surprises about me the judgement is the ruling that malice can only come from an individual journalist and that there is no editorial responsibilty at all, even in an editorial.

  16. Somewhat pedantic side-point:

    One interpretation of “the press” in the Free Press Clause, is that the original meaning the phrase was in reference to the physical printing press and, by logical extension, modern technologies like TVs.

    I think this is how Thomas and Scalia interpreted it.

    In this paradigm, when we talk of “free press” we are not really talking about protecting journalists as a profession, but rather the act of journalism…or everyone’s right to use technology to disseminate their ideas.

    So Trump’s use of twitter to falsely accuse President Obama of tapping his phones in a Nixon-like Watergate maneuver would also be protected.

  17. (It turns out that, under Obama, many people talking to the Russians DID have their phones tapped. Because they were talking to the Russians. Not false to claim to be tapped, if tapped.)

    I do think the NY Times had malice, as well as ignorance — but this ignorance should be publicized often by Trump and other Reps. NYT says something bad — more Fake News by Dem media which defends its lies by claiming ignorance.

    At the same time, I do hope Palin amends her suit and appeals, with naming the editor as well as the author, and taking off the NYT as a defendant.

    And maybe defamation law should change to have some threshold of income for news ($10 million? $100 million / per year? Having paid editors?), where there is a higher risk of losing libel lawsuits under a preponderance of evidence standard.

    It’s the lies from the Big News that are the real problem — because they’re mostly Dem. And Fox is becoming more Dem friendly. (Glad that Toni is going there, tho.)

  18. In somewhat related news . . . [ snicker ] . . .

    BEGIN PASTE

    Journalism’s Temple to Itself on ‘Death Watch’ After ‘Stunning Decline’

    Journalism’s temple to its own self importance, the Newseum in Washington D.C., is on a “death watch,” according to the Washington Post. The 250,000 square foot museum is in such bad shape that even Politico thinks it “deserves to die.” Post journalist Peggy McGlone on Wednesday delivered the bad news: “The Newseum has been on a death watch before, but Monday’s announcement that its parent foundation is considering selling the sprawling Washington museum devoted to journalism is a stunning acknowledgment of its long-standing struggles.”

    What are some of the problems? Well, for one, $500 million has been spent on the monument to journalism. McGlone explained just how expensive that made the Newseum for the general public: “Adult admission is set at $24.95 and youth tickets cost $14.95, making it one of the costliest museums in a city with many world-class institutions – such as the National Gallery of Art across the street – that are free.”

    To put it another way, a family of four visiting Washington D.C. would be paying almost $100, just for the chance to see and hear journalists compliment themselves.

    END PASTE

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2017/08/30/journalisms-temple-itself-death-watch-after-stunning-decline

  19. The NYT may claim ignorance or incompetence the first time, but every close association thereafter was either evidence of their malicious intent or a progressive condition such as dementia.

  20. Manju. Trump was quoting the NYT–a dumb idea, but still–which had reported the feds were listening to—somebody–in Trump Towers.

  21. In Sullivan issues, “malice” isn’t the only way to get yourself in trouble.
    Thinking bad thoughts and demonstrably lying are wrong, of course.
    But so is reckless disregard of truth, which can be a thing by itself, or an excuse for the actual malice. In this case, the excuse worked.
    Nobody could prove this clown had the brains to come in out of the rain, so his incompetence was excusable.

  22. A lot of people who read the NYTimes and quote it are dumb, including Bush II’s father.

  23. AesopFan Says:
    August 31st, 2017 at 1:35 am

    Ever see the power of a Benjamin bill in Latin America?

    Powerful and fast.

  24. Manju. Trump was quoting the NYT—a dumb idea, but still—which had reported the feds were listening to–somebody—in Trump Towers.

    Richard, I’m sure the Feds were listening to somebody in Trump Tower. Now all you have to do is find a NYTimes article stating that Obama ordered this surveillance, that the surveillance he ordered was on Donald Trump and his phones (or any other communication device) during the election period, and that such surveillance was illegal.

    Here’s the article in question:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?smid=pl-share

    Either Trump is stupid or lying. But the point is, that’s not for the courts to decide.

  25. Manju
    Why do I need to find the NYT saying this? The paper said Trump Towers was being tapped. That means Trump is well within the realm of logic to think it’s he and his doings that are the targets.
    Why does it need to be illegal to be remarked upon by the guy who thought he was the target?
    Your critiques would be reasonable if Trump were going to make a legal case of it.
    To make an analogy, if the cops are hanging out in front of your house, it’s reasonable to think they have some reason regarding you or your family as their interest. If they say it’s because they have biker’s mirrors on their sunglasses and they’re actually looking at the guy across the street behind them, you’re not likely to be mollified. But if your name is Trump, you’d be accused of publicity-seeking and unfounded paranoia.

  26. Why do I need to find the NYT saying this?

    Because you just said; “Trump was quoting the NYT”

    The paper said Trump Towers was being tapped.

    No. They never said Trump Towers was being tapped.

    That means Trump is well within the realm of logic to think it’s he and his doings that are the targets.

    Since this conclusion is dependent on the NYTimes saying that Trump Tower was tapped, and since they never said that, I assume there’s no need to proceed any further.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>