Not So Fast, Why Palin Could Win on Appeal Against The New York Times

Law Newz ^ | 8-29-2017 | Robert Barnes

[txnativegop]

The Sullivan ruling (c.1960) I believe raises its ugly head once more. A decision made by lawyers who wouldn’t know their @sses from holes in the ground.

[McCarthysGhost]

It may be possible to argue that there is a pattern of false stories about conservatives that are later followed by retractions that many readers never see so the retraction is meaningless and the damage is done. I don’t know. I hope she prevails against these commies.

[stylin19a]

Here's the judge early in his decision:

"In the end, however, articles published in the Times and elsewhere stated that no such connection had been established between the circulation of the SarahPAC Map and the Loughner shooting."

Let that sink in.

The NYTIMES knew and the judge knows the NYTIMES knew there was no connection of Palin Maps to the Loughner shooting (Where Rep. Giffords got shot). Yet the judge doesn't even go anywhere near this.
How can the NYTimes know it's false yet use it anyway in a new editorial and it not be malice ?
If I'm an editor at the Times, I use it to grab quick attention knowing I can retract it a day later when no one is watching.

It's not malice, because a quick correction was issued and Sarah wasn't the main focus of the editorial ?

[ChildOfThe60s]

You are forgetting what every lawyer knows. The law is not about justice.

[WASCWatch]

Biggest mistake Palin’s attorney made was filing the case in New York instead of Texas where she’d have a much better chance in prevailing. And yes, she could have sued the NYT in most, if not any states.

[libertylover]

Yep, that would’ve been good enough for that judge.

Any 1st Amendment lawsuit involving a major news outlet will probably have to be settled by the Supreme Court. I’m guessing/hoping Palin’s lawyers know this.