Sarah Palin lost her candidacy for a new defamation lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday, with a judge ruling that she did not present “even a speck” of evidence needed to prove that the newspaper slandered her in an editorial article from 2017.
A written ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jed C. Rakoff said that while mistakes were made because editors were quick to meet deadlines, “a mistake is not enough to win if it is not motivated by genuine malice.” “.
Actual malice is the legal obstacle posed by the Supreme Court, which a public figure like Ms. Palin must prove in order to win a defamation lawsuit. This would mean that The Times either knew that it was publishing false information or recklessly ignored the evidence, even though it doubted the veracity of what was published.
“What was striking about the trial here was that Palin, despite all his earlier allegations, was ultimately unable to present even a speck of such evidence,” Judge Rakov wrote. Palin’s request is completely rejected.
Ms Palin’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We are pleased to see the court’s decision and remain confident that the judge and the jury decided the case fairly and correctly,” said Charlie Stadlander, a spokesman for The Times.
The defamation case by Ms. Palin, a former Republican vice president and governor of Alaska, focuses on an editorial that mistakenly linked her campaign rhetoric to the 2011 Arizona mass shooting. The Times corrected the editorial in the morning after its publication.
Ms. Palin said the editorial had damaged her reputation and career. The Times’s lawyers said it was a “fair mistake” and that she never intended to harm Ms. Palin.
The trial came at a time when people who believe journalists should be held accountable for something wrong have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider. The current standard of defamation is established by the 1964 New York Times Company v. Sullivan case.
The end of the process was not without drama. While jurors were on trial on February 14, Judge Rakov announced that he intended to dismiss the lawsuit – even if the jury ruled in favor of Ms. Palin – because she had failed to show that The Times had acted out of genuine malice. . The next day, the jury dismissed Ms. Palin’s claim.
It was later revealed that several jurors had learned of Judge Rakov’s decision while they were still debating, thanks to push notifications on their mobile phones. But in a subsequent order, Judge Rakov said several jurors had told the court clerk that the notifications “did not affect them in any way or played any role in their deliberations”.
Ms. Palin’s lawyers cite the time of Judge Rakov’s announcement as one of the reasons for a new trial. Ms Palin can appeal, but the appellate courts are willing to respect jurors’ decisions.
In April, Ms. Palin announced that she would run for Congress in Alaska to return to national politics. She will join a packed field of nearly 40 candidates to take the seat in the House of Representatives left vacant by Representative Don Young, who died in March.
Add Comment