Palin suing NYT for their BS claim that she caused the Giffords massacre YAY!

[busybee01]

Palin to Sue NY Times Over 'Political Incitement' Editorial

LMAO! Love it. She has a great case! I hope she ends that miserable failing newspapers life!

She must need money. Taking a clue from T. Hope she loses.

Highly doubtful she needs the money. She wants the fake lying media held accountable and she is 100% correct. Wouldn't you sue someone for slandering you?

She doesn't have a leg to stand on. The fact is that many on this board are doing the same thing that the NY Times did. How many posts have taken what a Democrat says and tried to say that they are responsible for the shootings of Republicans. Palin can throw heat but it seems that she can't take it. The NY Times has a right to say it even if it is wrong. They are not defaming anyone.

People on this forum don't reach MILLIONS of people. NYT does.

So what. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. If the NY Times wants to say her rhetoric caused the Giffords shooting, they are wrong but they have a right to be wrong. This should be bounced out of court.

 

[busybee01]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Here is the problem with that. They are both opinion and the NY Times is entitled to their opinion. They are saying that the crosshairs over the congressional districts caused the shooting. It is BS but there is no way that Palin would win. The judge should bounce this out of court rather than waste time over something the NY Times will win either in court or on appeal.

 

[busybee01]

I can just imagine the judge in that courtroom.

"So, let me get this straight Mrs. Palin...during your campaign, you created an image depicting crosshairs over districts you needed to flip, and now you're here suing for defamation? Get the **** out of my courtroom with this frivolous bullshit and stop wasting everyone's time."

Districts are not people, moron.

Crosshairs are used in a target sense, and targeting a district during elections is not the same as calling people to kill individuals.

But you have to be someone other than a lefty to know that. You retards are just guns waiting to be aimed.

The real retard here is Sarah, thinking she has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this thing. Defamation cases are extremely difficult to win, she not only has to prove actual malice, she has to demonstrate financial hardship directly from the NYT commentary. She has ZERO chance. That chart her campaign created will work against her. This case will be thrown out.

One more time that chart had nothing to do with the massacre. And it's a walk in the park to prove malice. NYT knew bloody well it was a lie and still defamed her.

It is not a walk in the park. It is likely to be a loss. I have no doubt that people at the NY Times believe it. It may not be right but they have a first amendment right to state that belief. Plus Palin is a public figure. She will lose.

This is how the white trash hill billy is trying to make money now

Sarah Palin’s political brand has been reduced to a clickbait farm

These brief declarations have been accompanied by links to sarahpalin.com, where visitors to the homepage are greeted by a full-screen black-and-white photo of the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate. The banner reads, “Sarah Palin Building America’s Future,”

piece of white trash garbage

I think her being pissed off at being blamed once again for the deaths of 6 people is cause enough for the lawsuit.

Well, she was the one trying to incite violence talking about second amendment solutions and putting crosshairs on people. Ask Gabby Giffords and the families of the people killed in Arizona how they feel about caribou Barbie and her second amendment solutions.

Theres a pic of Palins map. It targets voting districts. Do you see peoples faces in the crosshairs?
The shooter had previous contact with Giffords which is why the news media trying to go after Palin is
politically motivated news and is why they are going to be sued and lose.


View attachment 136063

It doesn't matter whether their faces are there or not. They argue using crosshairs in the district caused the shooting. It is wrong but they have a right to be wrong.

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

To sue, one must prove the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, abridged that duty, and created a tort (some harm came to the plaintiff).

An editorial is an opinion, and others hold that opinion too***. First of all the truth is a defense for culumny, and the burden in a civil matter is on the plaintiff to prove the shooting had nothing to do with Palin's map. Good luck with that.

Remember when a comedian held up a cartoon of Trump's head, and the hysterical right wing had a fit? Palin will lose, and so will the foolish hypocrites who demanded Kathy Griffin be fired for a bad joke.


***

photo of map with bullseyes made by palin - Google Search:

Fact checkers including the WP said there are no links. Get a grip. Jake Tapper when he was with ABC cleared Palin in January 2011. Just because all you left wing loons have been running with the lie for years still doesn't make it true.

The NYT already put up a correction that there was no link so you might as well give it up that it's true. But nah. You left wing loons will keep lying about it for eternity.

"Jake Tapper‏Verified account @jaketapper


Replying to @EsotericCD


even way back in Jan 2011 we knew that Loughlin's obsession began 3 years before the Palin map."


I hope she takes them to the cleaners.



Jake Tapper on Twitter

They have a right to a opinion and there can be several opinions at a newspaper.

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Here is the problem with that. They are both opinion and the NY Times is entitled to their opinion. They are saying that the crosshairs over the congressional districts caused the shooting. It is BS but there is no way that Palin would win. The judge should bounce this out of court rather than waste time over something the NY Times will win either in court or on appeal.

It was never offered as an opinion but settled history. But lets play "opinion" for starters. The SCOTUS ruled in Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co that opinion can constitute libel.

Great article here and worth the read.

......saying someone’s actions “directly” and “clearly” “incited” another person to commit murder is much closer to libel.

Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them:

first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel. The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict.

The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning."

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

 

[busybee01]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Here is the problem with that. They are both opinion and the NY Times is entitled to their opinion. They are saying that the crosshairs over the congressional districts caused the shooting. It is BS but there is no way that Palin would win. The judge should bounce this out of court rather than waste time over something the NY Times will win either in court or on appeal.

It was never offered as an opinion but settled history. But lets play "opinion" for starters. The SCOTUS ruled in Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co that opinion can constitute libel.

Great article here and worth the read.

......saying someone’s actions “directly” and “clearly” “incited” another person to commit murder is much closer to libel.

Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them:

first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel. The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict.

The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning."

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Whether Giffords' face was there or not doesn't matter. They are crosshairs and their belief is that she created a atmosphere that led to the shooting. It may be wrong but it is a opinion.

There are several differences between Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co. First of all, Milkovich was declared not to be a public figure. Sarah Palin is a public figure. She makes her living being a public figure. Second, the court cited a public record that was available. There is no record to prove who is right. Also this is political speech. If politician A says that if politician b votes for a bill, he will have murdered people. Could politician b sue politician a for defamation or libel? No because it is political speech.

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Here is the problem with that. They are both opinion and the NY Times is entitled to their opinion. They are saying that the crosshairs over the congressional districts caused the shooting. It is BS but there is no way that Palin would win. The judge should bounce this out of court rather than waste time over something the NY Times will win either in court or on appeal.

It was never offered as an opinion but settled history. But lets play "opinion" for starters. The SCOTUS ruled in Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co that opinion can constitute libel.

Great article here and worth the read.

......saying someone’s actions “directly” and “clearly” “incited” another person to commit murder is much closer to libel.

Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them:

first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel. The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict.

The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning."

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Whether Giffords' face was there or not doesn't matter. They are crosshairs and their belief is that she created a atmosphere that led to the shooting. It may be wrong but it is a opinion.

There are several differences between Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co. First of all, Milkovich was declared not to be a public figure. Sarah Palin is a public figure. She makes her living being a public figure. Second, the court cited a public record that was available. There is no record to prove who is right. Also this is political speech. If politician A says that if politician b votes for a bill, he will have murdered people. Could politician b sue politician a for defamation or libel? No because it is political speech.

The public figure has to prove malice. And that's a walk in the park for Palin's lawyers because the New York Times knew they were lying. There is no link, absolutely no link to the Super Pac ad or to Loughner for the mass murder.The Times blatantly lied that there was and that Palin was to blame for the massacre. Well up to the point they issued the correction that said there was no link.

AND...

"Hiding behind the Editorial Page opinion as its excuse for this kind of factual insinuation is precisely the kind of innuendo the Supreme Court said was unprotected under the First Amendment from libel law remedies.

This is especially true when such opinion articles often reach the public as inseparable from news articles in today’s social media world. After all, the famous Milkovich opinion found actionable and unprotected by the First Amendment also concerned an opinion statement in an opinion editorial column as well."

Oh and if you actually read the papers filed with the court her lawyers really lay out how they've got the Times by the balls.

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

 

[there4eyeM]

Palin was only aggrandized by the recent publicity, and continuing the issue just keeps her name in the news. Otherwise, she is a complete 'has-been', a bad joke on American politics that really should be relegated to the recycling bin. The NYT should have left it all alone.

 

[tinydancer]

Palin was only aggrandized by the recent publicity, and continuing the issue just keeps her name in the news. Otherwise, she is a complete 'has-been', a bad joke on American politics that really should be relegated to the recycling bin. The NYT should have left it all alone.

Palin is gearing up again to help candidates in the mid terms. She's not a has been to conservatives. Her endorsement counts in right wing circles and her fund raising abilities for candidates is legendary.

 

[busybee01]

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Here is the problem with that. They are both opinion and the NY Times is entitled to their opinion. They are saying that the crosshairs over the congressional districts caused the shooting. It is BS but there is no way that Palin would win. The judge should bounce this out of court rather than waste time over something the NY Times will win either in court or on appeal.

It was never offered as an opinion but settled history. But lets play "opinion" for starters. The SCOTUS ruled in Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co that opinion can constitute libel.

Great article here and worth the read.

......saying someone’s actions “directly” and “clearly” “incited” another person to commit murder is much closer to libel.

Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them:

first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel. The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict.

The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning."

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

Whether Giffords' face was there or not doesn't matter. They are crosshairs and their belief is that she created a atmosphere that led to the shooting. It may be wrong but it is a opinion.

There are several differences between Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co. First of all, Milkovich was declared not to be a public figure. Sarah Palin is a public figure. She makes her living being a public figure. Second, the court cited a public record that was available. There is no record to prove who is right. Also this is political speech. If politician A says that if politician b votes for a bill, he will have murdered people. Could politician b sue politician a for defamation or libel? No because it is political speech.

The public figure has to prove malice. And that's a walk in the park for Palin's lawyers because the New York Times knew they were lying. There is no link, absolutely no link to the Super Pac ad or to Loughner for the mass murder.The Times blatantly lied that there was and that Palin was to blame for the massacre. Well up to the point they issued the correction that said there was no link.

AND...

"Hiding behind the Editorial Page opinion as its excuse for this kind of factual insinuation is precisely the kind of innuendo the Supreme Court said was unprotected under the First Amendment from libel law remedies.

This is especially true when such opinion articles often reach the public as inseparable from news articles in today’s social media world. After all, the famous Milkovich opinion found actionable and unprotected by the First Amendment also concerned an opinion statement in an opinion editorial column as well."

Oh and if you actually read the papers filed with the court her lawyers really lay out how they've got the Times by the balls.

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha

It is not a walk in the park. The printing of the article does not constitute malice. They have to prove the NY Times intended to harm her so unless someone is stupid enough to write something down, it ain't gonna happen. The link is the crosshairs that her PAC put out. It may not be true but if they believe it, it also becomes political discourse.

There are again several differences between Palin and Milkovich. Again Milkovich was not a public figure, this case involves political discourse, and there was a public record to examine. This case has none of those elements.

The fact is that you are a partisan hack and more interested in getting even. I may pay little attention to the Times, I believe they have the same rights that everyone else has. Palin's problem is not the Times story. People believe that she is a celebrity and that is all.

 

[Preacher]

Palin to Sue NY Times Over 'Political Incitement' Editorial

LMAO! Love it. She has a great case! I hope she ends that miserable failing newspapers life!

She must need money. Taking a clue from T. Hope she loses.

Highly doubtful she needs the money. She wants the fake lying media held accountable and she is 100% correct. Wouldn't you sue someone for slandering you?

She doesn't have a leg to stand on. The fact is that many on this board are doing the same thing that the NY Times did. How many posts have taken what a Democrat says and tried to say that they are responsible for the shootings of Republicans. Palin can throw heat but it seems that she can't take it. The NY Times has a right to say it even if it is wrong. They are not defaming anyone.

People on this forum don't reach MILLIONS of people. NYT does.

So what. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. If the NY Times wants to say her rhetoric caused the Giffords shooting, they are wrong but they have a right to be wrong. This should be bounced out of court.

Not if it caused her harm. Death Threats,loss of funds because shows didn't want her on etc.

 

[busybee01]

Palin was only aggrandized by the recent publicity, and continuing the issue just keeps her name in the news. Otherwise, she is a complete 'has-been', a bad joke on American politics that really should be relegated to the recycling bin. The NYT should have left it all alone.

Palin is gearing up again to help candidates in the mid terms. She's not a has been to conservatives. Her endorsement counts in right wing circles and her fund raising abilities for candidates is legendary.

Palin's star has been falling. She is not the draw that she was and contributions to her PAC have steadily dropped. She is doing this to revive her falling star.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do a picture with a scared rabbit "in the crosshairs" and every Democrat will feel personally intimidated.

 

[there4eyeM]

She should thank Jesus for the publicity.

 

[busybee01]

She must need money. Taking a clue from T. Hope she loses.

Highly doubtful she needs the money. She wants the fake lying media held accountable and she is 100% correct. Wouldn't you sue someone for slandering you?

She doesn't have a leg to stand on. The fact is that many on this board are doing the same thing that the NY Times did. How many posts have taken what a Democrat says and tried to say that they are responsible for the shootings of Republicans. Palin can throw heat but it seems that she can't take it. The NY Times has a right to say it even if it is wrong. They are not defaming anyone.

People on this forum don't reach MILLIONS of people. NYT does.

So what. Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. If the NY Times wants to say her rhetoric caused the Giffords shooting, they are wrong but they have a right to be wrong. This should be bounced out of court.

Not if it caused her harm. Death Threats,loss of funds because shows didn't want her on etc.

What harm? The only shows that she goes on are ones where they ask softball questions. Her tenure on OANN was a joke because she was so partisan.

 

[Ted Frazier]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Tinydancer will not be dancing today: New York Times Beats Sarah Palin Defamation Lawsuit

 

[Lakhota]

PALIN FAIL! JUDGE THROWS OUT NYT LAWSUIT

Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Dismissed

Palin lost. Hooray!!!!!

 

[Zorro!]

PALIN FAIL! JUDGE THROWS OUT NYT LAWSUIT
Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Dismissed

Palin lost. Hooray!!!!!

Fake News:

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin's Defamation Lawsuit Against The Lying Slandering Defaming Fake News New York Times

Sarah Palin is about to get all Up In Their Business...

Jonathan Turley, of the few honest Lefties at a national level, explains:

Sarah Palin is locked and loaded.

Palin’s won a major victory in a ruling that she could go to trial on a particularly outrageous editorial by Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times In June 2017. The editorial claimed that she incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to drive his own defamation lawsuits to settlement with various Lying Slandering Fake News news organizations like the Washington Post who lied and slandered the teenager over of his victimization by a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

The Lying Fake News Media has plunged headlong into propaganda and Left Wing bias.

The Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times claimed Palin and other Republicans had incited the Giffords shooting.

The editorial started off on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a violent left-wing felon and Sanders supporter.

The attack did not fit with the Lying Fake News narrative by the Lying Fake news media that claimed constant danger by right-wing violence and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times tried to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin:

“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the Court's Ruling begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.

The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.

What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not give you a license to lie and defame if you are asserting facts rather than opinion.

There is a big difference between stating fact and opinion and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.

What is not striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.

The court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:

The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

 

[tigerred59]

PALIN FAIL! JUDGE THROWS OUT NYT LAWSUIT
Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Dismissed

Palin lost. Hooray!!!!!

Fake News:

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin's Defamation Lawsuit Against The Lying Slandering Defaming Fake News New York Times

View attachment 381986​

Sarah Palin is about to get all Up In Their Business...

Jonathan Turley, of the few honest Lefties at a national level, explains:

Sarah Palin is locked and loaded.

Palin’s won a major victory in a ruling that she could go to trial on a particularly outrageous editorial by Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times In June 2017. The editorial claimed that she incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to drive his own defamation lawsuits to settlement with various Lying Slandering Fake News news organizations like the Washington Post who lied and slandered the teenager over of his victimization by a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

The Lying Fake News Media has plunged headlong into propaganda and Left Wing bias.

The Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times claimed Palin and other Republicans had incited the Giffords shooting.

The editorial started off on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a violent left-wing felon and Sanders supporter.

The attack did not fit with the Lying Fake News narrative by the Lying Fake news media that claimed constant danger by right-wing violence and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times tried to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin:

“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the Court's Ruling begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.

The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.

What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not give you a license to lie and defame if you are asserting facts rather than opinion.

There is a big difference between stating fact and opinion and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.

What is not striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.

The court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:

The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

That brain dead ***** got more blood on her hands than a first time tampon user....own it Palin and then crawl back under your damn rock, nobody gives a fukkk about you lady...they have Malania and Ivomic...to masterbate over now.

 

[Hossfly]

PALIN FAIL! JUDGE THROWS OUT NYT LAWSUIT
Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Dismissed

Palin lost. Hooray!!!!!

Fake News:

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin's Defamation Lawsuit Against The Lying Slandering Defaming Fake News New York Times

View attachment 381986​

Sarah Palin is about to get all Up In Their Business...

Jonathan Turley, of the few honest Lefties at a national level, explains:

Sarah Palin is locked and loaded.

Palin’s won a major victory in a ruling that she could go to trial on a particularly outrageous editorial by Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times In June 2017. The editorial claimed that she incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to drive his own defamation lawsuits to settlement with various Lying Slandering Fake News news organizations like the Washington Post who lied and slandered the teenager over of his victimization by a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

The Lying Fake News Media has plunged headlong into propaganda and Left Wing bias.

The Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times claimed Palin and other Republicans had incited the Giffords shooting.

The editorial started off on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a violent left-wing felon and Sanders supporter.

The attack did not fit with the Lying Fake News narrative by the Lying Fake news media that claimed constant danger by right-wing violence and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times tried to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin:

“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the Court's Ruling begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.

The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.

What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not give you a license to lie and defame if you are asserting facts rather than opinion.

There is a big difference between stating fact and opinion and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.

What is not striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.

The court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:

The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

That brain dead ***** got more blood on her hands than a first time tampon user....own it Palin and then crawl back under your damn rock, nobody gives a fukkk about you lady...they have Malania and Ivomic...to masterbate over now.

 

[Zorro!]

PALIN FAIL! JUDGE THROWS OUT NYT LAWSUIT
Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Dismissed

Palin lost. Hooray!!!!!

Fake News:

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin's Defamation Lawsuit Against The Lying Slandering Defaming Fake News New York Times

View attachment 381986​

Sarah Palin is about to get all Up In Their Business...

Jonathan Turley, of the few honest Lefties at a national level, explains:

Sarah Palin is locked and loaded.

Palin’s won a major victory in a ruling that she could go to trial on a particularly outrageous editorial by Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times In June 2017. The editorial claimed that she incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to drive his own defamation lawsuits to settlement with various Lying Slandering Fake News news organizations like the Washington Post who lied and slandered the teenager over of his victimization by a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

The Lying Fake News Media has plunged headlong into propaganda and Left Wing bias.

The Lying Slandering Fake News New York Times claimed Palin and other Republicans had incited the Giffords shooting.

The editorial started off on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a violent left-wing felon and Sanders supporter.

The attack did not fit with the Lying Fake News narrative by the Lying Fake news media that claimed constant danger by right-wing violence and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times tried to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin:

“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the Court's Ruling begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.

The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.

What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not give you a license to lie and defame if you are asserting facts rather than opinion.

There is a big difference between stating fact and opinion and the Lying Slandering Fake News Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.

What is not striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.

The court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:

The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

That brain dead ***** got more blood on her hands than a first time tampon user....own it Palin and then crawl back under your damn rock, nobody gives a fukkk about you lady...they have Malania and Ivomic...to masterbate over now.

Your pathetic and worn out vulgarities speak to the desperation of the Lying Fake News Media that has lied its way out of any credibility at all. I doubt the Lying Fake News Legal Team will come up with better legal arguments than you have, and hell, you coughed yours up for free!