sue for the current taxable valuation, PLUS one dollar...
Posted on 07/17/2017 12:03:43 PM PDT by simpson96
Edited on 07/17/2017 1:02:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The New York Times has asked a judge to toss out a defamation lawsuit former Alaska governor Sarah Palin filed against it, saying there was not actual malice in a recent editorial it quickly corrected after readers complained.
The newspaper said in court papers late Friday that its prompt and full correction of an editorial that referenced Palin's political action committee nullifies her claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Their editorials are 100% malice.
I think Palin’s attorneys will have something to say about this. These are heavy hitters she hired with giant success. They would not have taken it if it were so easy to get out of imo.
Since the rule of law may be out the window, it’s possible that some activist Progressive judge might decide that there’s no merit to the case, by making a brilliant, intellectual, Progressive decision, with no due process.
(Progressive scu%bags just love that double standard of justice.)
IMHO
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html
These attorneys sued Gawker and Gawker is now...gone.
Palin’s lawyers should have a lot of fun in the discovery phase.
Maybe they would be the ones to go after the NYT & that judge with good results. Not many people would miss them.
Wasn’t The Times sold for $1?
She could sue them for $2 and double their money.
Take over, and fire all the ‘progressives’ who see their role as being there to “change the world”, and replace them all with actual reporters who know their job is to “report what happened” without bias.
The editorial cannot be anything BUT actual malice. It was an opinion piece, not news. So it reported an opinion that reflected a completely unsubstantiated assertion that Sarah Palin, acting through the agency of her PAC, suborned another party to commit murder. That is certainly damaging, and if not malicious, was composed with no regard for its veracity. Either one constitutes libel.
Malice in the dictionary sense doesn’t matter. The issue is constitutional malice as defined by the Supreme Court in NY Times v. Sullivan. It’s a tough burden for any public figure to meet.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha... etc.
That might possibly fly, except for that little inconvenient fact that the correction was neither made promptly nor was it a full correction.
The New York Times habitually lies. This is just par for the course.
After all, when you're The New York Times, actual facts are such inconvenient things, huh...
“An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords,” the Times’ correction said. “In fact, no such link was established.”
I think it may be closer to proving her claims.
You’re right. I certainly wouldn’t call that a full retraction.
sue for the current taxable valuation, PLUS one dollar...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.