Jury finds New York Times not liable in Sarah Palin defamation case
Jury finds New York Times not liable in Sarah Palin defamation case
NEW YORK - A federal jury in Manhattan on Tuesday found the New York Times not liable for allegedly defaming Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial about gun control, dealing the former Republican vice presidential candidate a second loss at trial.
The verdict came in a retrial of Palin's case, after a federal appeals court threw out a 2022 verdict in the Times' favor.
The jury deliberated for around two hours after a weeklong trial.
In a statement after the verdict, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said, "The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.'Palin's lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Palin, 61, who also served as Alaska's governor, sued the newspaper and former editorial page editor James Bennet over a June 14, 2017, article that wrongly suggested she may have incited a January 2011 mass shooting in an Arizona parking lot.
Six people were killed and Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords was seriously wounded in the attack.Bennet said he was under deadline pressure when he added language to "America's Lethal Politics" that linked the attack to a map from Palin's political action committee that put Giffords and other Democrats under crosshairs.
The Times quickly acknowledged its mistake and apologized, publishing a correction 14 hours after the editorial appeared online.
Lawyers for Palin said that wasn't enough because the backtracking didn't mention her by name.In her closing argument, Times' lawyer Felicia Ellsworth alluded to the high burden that Palin, a public figure, had in order to hold the newspaper liable.
"To win this case, Governor Palin needs to prove that the New York Times and James Bennet did not care about the truth," she said. "There has not been one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake."
Palin lawyer Ken Turkel said it was more than that.
"This is not an honest mistake about a passing reference" to Palin, he said in his closing argument. "For her, it was a life-changer."
Palin lost her first trial in February 2022, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan last August said the verdict was tainted by several rulings from the presiding judge.
The case had long been viewed by Palin and other conservatives as a possible vehicle to overturn the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court landmark New York Times v. Sullivan.
In that case, the court said that to win a defamation case, a public figure must demonstrate that an offending statement was made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false.
The 2nd Circuit, however, said Palin waived the argument by waiting too long to challenge the "actual malice" standard. President Donald Trump has also questioned the standard.Palin was Alaska's governor from 2006 to 2009, and ran with late Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his unsuccessful 2008 White House run. Democrat Barack Obama and his vice presidential pick Joe Biden won that race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lake County GOP chair alleges Dems set up for caucus during work hours
Lake County Republican Party Chairman and county councilman Randy Niemeyer raised concerns Tuesday about Democratic employees setting up for the party's caucus during work hours and paying student election workers for training they didn't attend. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration Director Michelle Fajman said the set-up for the caucus took place over the weekend, and that student election workers have a different training sign-in and payment process compared to other election workers. Niemeyer, R-Cedar Lake, said during the council's Tuesday meeting five or six Democratic employees spent three hours setting up for the county Democratic Party caucus, which was held Saturday, March 1, at the Lake County Government Center auditorium, during work hours Friday, February 28. The county's employee handbook says 'that activity is deemed improper,' Niemeyer said, so he'd like to look into why the employees set up the caucus during work hours, what has been done to correct the action, and who paid for the workers' time. 'That is not allowed to happen on government time even if there is someone else paying for it,' Niemeyer said. 'I don't think it's ever good practice for government workers to be participating in political work during their work hours.' Lake County has a history of employees doing political work in the office, Niemeyer said, like former Lake County Surveyor George Van Til who was convicted in federal court for using county resources to run his campaign. 'We've had situations here in the past where people have faced legal consequences for those sorts of things, and I sure as heck don't want to see another black eye on Lake County.' Employees did not spend three hours setting up for the caucus during business hours. The voting machines and tables were delivered that Friday, Fajman said, but all set up was done Saturday morning. Fajman said some employees could've walked into the auditorium to see if the equipment was in the room ready to be set up the next day. Employees like to walk the government campus during their breaks, so it's possible some employees could've walked by the auditorium, she said, but no set-up was done. During the May special Crown Point and Hobart school referendum elections, Niemeyer said he was concerned about inspectors and students being paid for training, which they have to attend by law, but records indicate that some didn't receive training. 'We've got some discrepancies there in processes and systems that need to be looked into,' Niemeyer said. Fajman said that special elections are paid for by the entity holding the election, so all payments of election workers would be paid for by the school districts. Initially, the money comes out of the county's general fund, and then the schools reimburse the county for the elections. Under Indiana law, clerks and judges can complete election training online or in person, Fajman said. Inspectors have to do training in person, she said. Further, Indiana law dictates that students have to attend training, Fajman said, so they can pick in person or online. Fajman said when election workers go to training, they show their driver's license and check in on a poll pad against voter registration data. Because some students aren't old enough to vote yet, Fajman said they are checked in manually. To get paid, students on Election Day sign a pay claim and mark on the claim that they attend training. Inspectors could have a discrepancy in training attendance because there could be situations where an inspector had to back out of working the election – but remains on the record – and another inspector fills in, Fajman said. The election office has been working toward coming up with a system to better track attendance and payments, Fajman said, and hopes to launch it by the next general election. 'Right now, there's no foolproof method that we have, but we're looking into it right now,' Fajman said. Ted Bilski, D-Hobart, said he supports Niemeyer raising questions about what occurred in the election office and during the special election. But there's 'agencies out there to police that,' Bilski said. Bilski said the situations should be looked into and see what the investigations find. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said since Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, was in the audience of the meeting, maybe the legislature could look into election training criteria to make it more clear who can and can't do which type of training. akukulka@
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal
Sir Keir Starmer has met the US commerce secretary as the Government continues to push for its American trade deal to come into force. The Prime Minister dropped in on a meeting between Howard Lutnick and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds in Downing Street on Tuesday. Mr Lutnick was in London for talks with China on resolving the trade war between Washington and Beijing, and Mr Reynolds took the opportunity to meet him in person to push for the UK-US trade deal announced last month to be implemented as soon as possible. The meeting follows talks between the Business Secretary and US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris last week. Under the terms of the agreement announced by Sir Keir and Donald Trump, the US will implement import quotas that will effectively eliminate tariffs on British steel and cut the levy on vehicles to 10%. But the deal has yet to be implemented and tariffs on both steel and cars remain at 25%, although the UK has been spared the increase on steel duties to 50% that Mr Trump imposed on the rest of the world last week. In a post on social media, Mr Reynolds said he had discussed 'progress on our trade deal – including UK autos and steel' with Mr Lutnick. UK officials remain hopeful that the deal will be implemented soon, but Tuesday's meeting does not appear to have moved the issue beyond both sides agreeing the need to move quickly. Speaking in the Commons last week, Sir Keir said he was 'very confident' that tariffs would come down in line with the deal 'within a very short time'. Implementing the deal will require the UK to pass legislation, likely to involve regulations rather than a full Act of Parliament, while the US will also need to create a legal mechanism to bring steel and vehicle quotas into effect.
