Palin’s lawsuit alleges
The initial version of [the 2017 Times editorial] said it was “clear” that the 2011 shooting [of Rep. Gabby Giffords] was linked to a map Palin’s political action committee released that included crosshairs over Giffords’ Tucson district. However, no such link has ever been established.
Typically, public figures have a very high burden of proof for slander and libel cases. Do you think we’ll be seeing a lot of similar cases against Fox?
In what way was she damaged by this assertion? Her political career is gone and it would only increase her audience if true.
Maybe she’s pissed that the Times didn’t work harder to establish that it was true, and that hindered her audience being increased…
To be fair, she’s been attempting to be a media figure since 2010 - when she joined Fox “News” as a commentator.
Aside from her appearances with her daughter on MTV’s “Teen Mom OG”, this article from four years ago is latest I could find:
An editorial painting her in a bad light the following year could conceivably have put an end to that.
I guess the game show circuit’s pretty slow these days.
Sadly democrats are a lot less aggressive so even if it changes the law I doubt democrats take advantage of it.
If they did the right would be buried under lawsuits.
Bumping this old thread because, as all Dopers surely know by now, it’s in the news again and there isn’t another thread that I know of that’s specifically dedicated to this topic . . .
Besides, the following is directly relevant to OP’s topic:
So, in answer to the OP and the above link:
No shit, Sherlock!
All the (sensible) news commentators seem to agree that, had Palin won this case, it would be a disaster for journalism. Reporters would have to dance on eggshells with every word they write.
As we know from yesterday’s news, the judge dismissed the case (while the jury was deliberating!) but allowed the jury to continue anyway on the theory that Palin would appeal. Then the jury unanimously decided in favor of the Times after all.
The judge remarked that the jury’s time was not wasted, saying that he had ruled on the law, while the jury had ruled on the facts. So a double whammy against Palin. Appeal THAT!
Had Palin won this case, I think it would affect – very badly – the most dishonest right-wing conservative media much more than any reputable mainstream (even conservative) media. They’d be up to their assholes in lawsuits.
While I am glad about the judge’s decision, I question his timing. Why the heck didn’t he dismiss this sooner as in before he sent the jury to deliberate? Presumably if the suit was totally meritless on the law that would be identified early in the proceedings. If he needed to hear the evidence presented in order to decide whether there was any malice isn’t he deciding on the evidence?
Finally does the jury know that he has already thrown out the case? If so then I don’t see how they could possibly be thought of as unbiased. I’d love to hear a lawyer’s interpreation of this but to my lay eyes it looks like a giant clusterfuck on the part of the judge.
I eagerly await LegalEagle’s next youtube video.
FWIW, The Onion doesn’t seem worried at all.
So can Sarah Palin’s history of lies be used to bury her under lawsuits?
https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/The-Lies-of-Sarah-Palin-by-Geoffrey-Dunn-2371743.php
Trump lied 30,573 his first 4 years as president. Why wasn’t he buried under lawsuits?