Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2017

Sarah Palin Files Lawsuit Against The New York Times

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:48 am

[guest post by Dana]

Sarah Palin is suing the NYT for defamation over a recent editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” which tied her to the Gabby Gifford shooting in 2011:

Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate, filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times Company on Tuesday, saying the newspaper had published a statement about her in a recent editorial that it “knew to be false.”

In the lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Palin contends that The Times “violated the law and its own policies” when it linked her in an editorial to a mass shooting in January 2011.

The editorial was published online on June 14, the day a gunman opened fire at a baseball field where Republican lawmakers were practicing for an annual charity game. The editorial said there was a link between political incitement and the mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded Representative Gabby Giffords and said that Ms. Palin’s “political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.

You can read the complaint here. (Scroll down to bottom). In part:

Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011. Specifically, on June 14, 2017, The Times Editorial Board, which represents the “voice” of The Times, falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, during which he shot nineteen people, severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.

The Times conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs. Palin to an award of punitive damages.

As has been documented, The Times has been pushing this debunked smear for several years.

Here is the correction The Times posted the day after running the June 14 editorial:

NYT

important fact

NYT2

The Washington Post notes that the claim addresses that no retraction of the article was made, as well as no apology was made directly to Palin:

“Given that the entire premise of the Palin Article was the ‘disturbing pattern’ of politically incited violence emanating from a non-existent link between Mrs. Palin and Loughner’s 2011 crime, which The Times conceded did not exist, the entire Palin Article should have been retracted — not minimally and inadequately corrected — and The Times should have apologized to Mrs. Palin.”

Erik Wemple writes that The Times tried again, publishing yet another unsatisfactory “correction”:

Correction: June 16, 2017
An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.

Again, what’s up with the failure to cite Palin in the corrective language? “The Times did not issue a full and fair retraction of its defamatory Palin Article, nor did it issue a public apology to Mrs. Palin for stating that she incited murder and was the centerpiece of a ‘sickening’ pattern of politically motivated shootings,” says the complaint.

There’s an interesting thread here discussing the merits of Palin’s lawuit, which Popehat’s Ken White says he believes it to be “non-frivolous” (meaning: “not obviously wrong, possibly has merit”).

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

199 Responses to “Sarah Palin Files Lawsuit Against The New York Times”

  1. Good for Palin.

    Dana (023079)

  2. Good for Palin.

    Ditto, Dana.

    The NYT knew it was false, but they could not resist.

    Would love to be a fly on the wall during depositions!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  3. Absent court order, depositions are public – that is, transcripts of the depositions are public, subject to the rules of the court hearing the case. A friendly judge might seal said transcripts, but in as high profile a case as this, the sworn testimony is definitely if legitimate public interest.

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  4. About time.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  5. “5 years ago, if you would’ve told me Trump would be president and Sarah Palin would own the New York Times, I would’ve called you nuts.” – Sean Spicier on Twitter.

    harkin (6fe2b1)

  6. accountability

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  7. One more desperate attempt for Sarah Palin to stay relevant. Think she can wrangle another ghostwritten book out of this?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  8. The fact of repeated and immediate corrections will prevent any finding of “actual malice,” I’d wager – if the statements at issue are viewed as anything other than opinions, which is unlikely. This is a bid for publicity. Sad!

    Leviticus (efada1)

  9. No, this is a quest for media accountability.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  10. Greetings:

    Kind of re-inforces my view about how the right usually seems to be so court-averse. Regardless of the various kinds and levels of leftist assaults, the right has largely sat back and endured those slings and arrows in the mode of what I know as “cooperate and graduate”. As much as I grew up in the Bronx culture of “If you’re in court, you’ve already lost. The question to be decided is “How much?”, there comes a time to introduce your opponents to the “The process is the punishment.” concept.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  11. Maybe you would like a psychonstakker move next to you, sail goodman, this was deliberate malice nit only silence her but the tea party, very few actually defended her, so she had to do it herself

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. Her first two books outsold the slop that red queen put out, one by an 8-1 margin

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. Leviticus, the mind boggles at your blinders.

    The NYTimes published a known lie to impugn the current president as a hater, by lying about Palin. The “corrections” did not obviate the open malice in the act.

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  14. They softpedaled sheriff dupaks malfeasance in failing to keep the shooter in jail

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. 7 – “One more desperate projection of their own hate and bile on to a conservative”

    fyp

    NY Times trots out long-discredited smear that Palin incited mass-murder?

    Clueless Left: “Blame Palin!!”

    harkin (6fe2b1)

  16. This tool
    http:;/tucson.com/news/blogs/police-beat/pima-county-sheriff-dupnik-announces-retirement/article_dc6a521c-a18d-52ee-8015-6ae7654e565f.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. Note Carlos slims gave dupnik every out, covering the story as iowahawk notrs

    https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/07/20/pima-county-sheriff-offices-drastic-double-dipping/

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. @8 — the corrections were not “retractions”.

    What CNN did was a “retraction” of an incorrect story.

    In addition, you can’t “scrub” a print edition editorial the same way you can scrub an online story like CNN did.

    She’s got a great shot at winning — maybe not a lot of money, but winning anything in this circumstance is a huge victory.

    NYT knew when the editorial ran that linking Palin to Loughner was factually incorrect. They did so anyway.

    shipwreckedcrew (470cbb)

  19. Personally I think what the New York Times did was completely over the line, to the extent of legal damages and it’s very rare that I say that about speech. Palin simply did not directly target anyone, the crosshairs weren’t on Giffords, the direct link was not real, and the Times deserves to lose the suit.

    Palin has done the conservative movement tremendous damage and I have a very low opinion of her, but she did not do anything to deserve the lie in the Times.

    It reminds me of how Trump treated Cruz’s dad, albeit the Times was a hell of a lot more direct about it.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  20. It is true that Palin has an uphill battle to prevail in such a suit. However, she ought to prevail.

    SPQR (156f39)

  21. The parallel is clear Carlos slims in both instances has sought tie obfuscate the shooters respinsibility

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Bless the Beasts and the Children Fu*k the Press and Their Lawyers

    Fu*k the press and their lawyers,
    For in this world they make teh rules
    They hold your jewels
    Fu*k the press and their lawyers
    For the world will never be,
    The world they see.
    Light their ass
    When their smugness surrounds them;
    Show your cards, raise a stink all around them
    Fu*k the press and their lawyers
    Chuck a rock, that’s a start
    Make us proud
    Throw it hard
    Light their ass
    When their smugness surrounds them;
    Show your cards make a stink all around them.
    Fu*k the press and their lawyers
    Chuck a rock, that’s a start
    Make us proud
    Throw it hard
    Fu*k the press and their lawyers
    Make their lives a living Hell
    Light their ass
    Ring their bell

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  23. Now Carlos slims gave license to the like of Christopher titus

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=370422

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. Meanwhile, the Daily Caller is reporting that there appears to be a chain of communications between the terrorist and the office of Dick Durbin and that office is refusing to let reporters from that outlet have access to the info.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  25. Terrorist who shot the congressmenz…

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  26. Isn’t that curious coronello, it reminds of the winter soldiers that lurch ran with which mused about targeting pro war senators like stennis

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Between Sanders and Durbin, it’s shatheelz all the way down.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  28. plus starbucks drinks apparently are filled with poopies

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  29. @22. Haiku! Gesundheit!

    Shorter: FU.

    But they did spell her name right, which is all that matters to a has-been seeking publicity.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – 1st Amendment

    ____________

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words Of Wonder:

    “That’s right. Right. The main thing is, the [Washington] Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station… and they’re going to have to get it renewed.” – President Richard Nixon plotting retaliation against the free press reporting on Watergate, WH Oval Office tapes, September 15, 1972

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. looks like Jason Chaffetz fancies himself the new Sarah Palin

    wad

    of

    dork

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. @7. One more desperate attempt for Sarah Palin to stay relevant. Think she can wrangle another ghostwritten book out of this?

    Bingo.

    You win the thread.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Compare & contrast with Mann v national Review/Steyn/CEI – Styen & Simberg statements were malicious and probably intentionally malicious – yet truth is a defense and there is strong evidence that their statements were factually accurate.

    Joe - the realist (debac0)

  33. that wasn’t a bingo that wasn’t even a yahtzee

    i can’t even handle you right now

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  34. Apparently Sarah Palin is at least still somewhat relevant, since the NYT editorial board has to dredge up her name every now and again to make a grossly-partisan point.

    JVW (dadb0c)

  35. 30… shades of FCC, 2010 – 2016

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  36. “I am not a dork”

    — From “Teh Adventures of Barcky O’bama”

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  37. 18 – “In addition, you can’t “scrub” a print edition editorial the same way you can scrub an online story like CNN did.”

    Bingo – hardly anyone writing up the story even acknowledges this. They sent out an entire day’s worth of copies with the smear so for every reader who relies on the dead tree version, MISSION ACCOMPLSHED BONUS POINTS.

    And I doubt very much the subsequent half-a$$ed correction was page 1 above the fold.

    Hope she gets millions.

    harkin (70fe68)

  38. Good for Palin.

    Thanks for the post, Dana.

    I like it when the Republicans are on offense.

    Is it just me, or does there seem to be a palpable shift in the political balance over the past couple of weeks?

    ThOR (c9324e)

  39. DCSCA – Levi’s Sock Puppet?

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  40. @ shipwreckedcrew,

    NYT knew when the editorial ran that linking Palin to Loughner was factually incorrect. They did so anyway.

    That they then referred to it in their “correction” as a “mistake” makes it’s all the more incriminating and infuriating. They knew precisely what they were doing, they knew their angry readers who hate all things Trump and Republican, were already prepped and ready to buy hook, line and sinker someone they already loathe as the scapegoat.

    Dana (023079)

  41. “5 years ago, if you would’ve told me Trump would be president and Sarah Palin would own the New York Times, I would’ve called you nuts.” – Sean Spicier on Twitter.

    And if you’d told the American people 5 years ago a pudgy guy who dressed up as a six-foot rabbit and whose college nickname wasn’t ‘Harvey‘ but ‘Sphincter’ would own the title of ‘Baghdad Bob of Washington’ for the president but become a household word for being laughably lampooned by a corpulent comedienne on Saturday Night Live – we’d have called him nutz.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/16/sean-spicer-dressed-easter-bunny-president-george-bush-white-house-egg-roll

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. Palin has done the conservative movement tremendous damage and I have a very low opinion of her, but she did not do anything to deserve the lie in the Times.

    Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/28/2017 @ 10:12 am

    Did she? Pray tell; what specifically did Palin do or say to damage the conservative movement?

    Anon Y. Mous (0c3f6f)

  43. News reporters gather factual information… An editorial, on the other hand, may be based in fact, but its main purpose is not to inform, but to express opinion.

    http://classroom.synonym.com/difference-between-editorial-newspaper-article-8560667.html

    The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs. The NYT Opinion Twitter account also sent out the correction about the lack of a link, apologizing and saying that it appreciated that readers had pointed out the mistake.

    The Times issued a correction.

    The Times conduct was committed knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm, thereby entitling Mrs. Palin to an award of punitive damages.

    A soiled dove, eh. We know what she is; she just wants to dicker over price. Next year she can pose for Playboy’s ‘Women Of Alaska Over 50′ spread– there’s publicity money there if you don’t mind the staples. And there’s always a spotlight under streetlights and lamp posts.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. Meanwhile the Showman In Chief and Top Purveyor of Fake News has yet to fess up and be held accountable:

    Time asks Trump to take down fake magazine covers

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/06/28/time-asks-trump-take-down-fake-magazine-covers/435085001/

    “What, me worry?” – Alfred E. Neuman, 1956, Mad Magazine

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. 31, should have been Dana Loesch, just from her NRA bits alone.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  46. The “America’s Lethal Politics” article was an Op-Ed. The “Op” stands for “opinion.” The statements at issue are easily characterized as opinions under Milkovich. The corrections, strategic or not, will remedy any issues regarding the mistaken statements about crosshairs. And this is before we even get to the “actual malice” standards.

    This is a nothingburger, legally. A publicity lawsuit for a publicity person.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  47. As compared to the melting trump covers Ala watchmen

    acecomments.mu.nu/?post=acecomments.mu.nu/?post=370423

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. 40… no, more like a butt plug.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  49. “[Re: Loughner] … 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 crosshairs.”

    You guys have seen that map, right? You may not agree that it amounts to “political incitement [to violence]” but you don’t have to. It’s an opinion in an op-ed, and I seriously doubt it will be actionable.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  50. @48. Double-bingo!

    You win the thread and the web for the day!

    “What else do we have for him, Johnny… a new car! Yes, it’s a 1973 Pinto, from Ford…” – Game Show Network

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. Meanwhile, another wheel falls off the Left’s rodeo clown 🤡 car… http://breaking.projectveritas.com/cnnpart2.html

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  52. this is a much more productive and socially valuable thing for Sarah Palin to do than what she was doing before

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  53. Note van Jones the Connie extortionist, is not controversial at CNN.

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. “this is a much more productive and socially valuable thing for Sarah Palin to do than what she was doing before”

    – happyfeet

    This is Sarah Palin doing the same thing that Sarah Palin has always done – promote Sarah Palin. The Palins are the right wing’s Kardashians.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  55. well plus she’s suing the New York Times Mr. Leviticus

    that’s so fun

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  56. Ah yes Gary johndin, the fellow whose campaign kicked new Mexico into red queens corner.

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. I’m not seeing a lot of substantive argument from your corner, narciso.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  58. What a coincidence!!

    O’Keefe video shows CNN’s Van Jones calling Russia story a ‘nothingburger‘.

    https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger%3Famp

    harkin (6fe2b1)

  59. Your not giving me any grounds to do so, saul.

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. Civility were going to have to try that:
    abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arkansas-ten-commandments-monument-capitol-destroyed-48322667

    narciso (d1f714)

  61. Conservatives concerned with newspaper of record falsely accusing someone of inciting mass murder.

    Liberals concerned with Lebowski-style vanity covers.

    And they wonder why there’s so…..much…..winning.

    harkin (6fe2b1)

  62. wow

    breaking all ten commandments with one action

    impressive

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  63. Attempting to gain support for your opinion with a libelous statement of fact, does not make that libelous statement of fact an opinion.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. Calling per se defamation “an opinion” is a silly dodge. The op-ed made false statements of fact, does not matter on what page of the paper the lie was published.

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  65. Lol, nk

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  66. Calling a series of events “political incitement” is not falsifiable, unless you have some crystal ball of causation.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  67. What were the “false statements of fact,” Steve Malynn?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  68. Tell it to the jury, Levi.

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  69. Good answer. Palin won’t get that far, though.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  70. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is available, as is the entire complaint.

    This will settle before it gets to a Jury, even in NYC, the times won’t risk a jury verdict.

    Steve Malynn (d29fc3)

  71. It is well established, and the NYT knew it, that there was absolutely no connection — zero, zip, zilch, nada — between the Palin PAC ads and Loughner shooting Giffords. Loughner shot her for his own crazy reasons, unrelated to any political incitement by Palin or anybody else.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. They softpedaled sheriff dupaks malfeasance in failing to keep the shooter in jail

    Dupak, the sheriff, was also the origin of the “bullseye” story, as I recall.

    The shooter’s mother worked for him and suppressed all he complaints about her son’s psychotic behavior.

    Sorry, Patrick

    Mike K (f97920)

  73. The suit will be dismissed on motions – if not as an “opinion” situation, then for lack of “actual malice,” as evidenced by the retractions.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  74. Time will tell, but the Times certainly may have pulled a ‘Joe McGinness’:

    McGinniss moves next door to Palin in Wasilla in 2008 to dig up dirt on Palin and her family.

    “According to advance reviews (of the McGinness book), the book alleges premarital sex and drug use … (Wiki)

    “McGinniss died March 10, 2014″ (Wiki)

    “In 2016 his son, Joe McGinniss Jr., published an account in The New Yorker about his father’s failed marriage, career collapse, alcoholism and drug addiction.” (Wiki)

    H/t Humperdink via Althouse

    harkin (6fe2b1)

  75. i vote no dismissals

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  76. @ Leviticus,

    The “America’s Lethal Politics” article was an Op-Ed. The “Op” stands for “opinion.” The statements at issue are easily characterized as opinions under Milkovich. The corrections, strategic or not, will remedy any issues regarding the mistaken statements about crosshairs. And this is before we even get to the “actual malice” standards.

    I’m confused: The Times made a correction to what they declared was a fact: “We made an error of fact in the editorial, and we’ve corrected it.”

    What am I missing?

    Dana (023079)

  77. Well first it was 2010, and breitbart united a string of emails between Mcguinness and his editor, as the latter could not prove any of the assertions that Mcguinness had made.

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. Leviticus,

    David French differentiates and points out the vulnerability:

    IMO this was institutional speech, an editorial that combined statements of fact and opinion. NYT is vulnerable on the fact statements.

    Dana (023079)

  79. The daily mail, has tried try k’s like this with .elania, they got their bowler handed to them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. McGinniss would argue that he did manage to score a huge scoop that did not need a correction or retraction. The Palins did build a higher fence.

    harkin (ce04df)

  81. Is Tucson in the Gadsden purchase part of Arizona? Hmmm….

    urbanleftbehind (ee6f14)

  82. CNN Is now propagandizing against teh travel Ban by using refugee expert… Elmo Muppetti al-sheedmuhdrurs.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  83. Forgive my ignorance of the law. Sullivan opens the door to recovery if a party knew what it published was not true. That I do know. What I would love for a learned person to tell me is if the phrase, “or should have known” is implicit in the ruling.

    If it is, palin has a great shot at winning. The NYT prides itself on the smartest and best-informed editorial staff. Somewhere, the vaunted “layers” should have corrected the factual “error” before publication.

    For the folks in this thread who declare Palin is attempting to remain relevant – the NYT did her that favor by dint of its targeting her. She was made relevant through no choice of her own.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  84. spin spin sugar

    cnn propaganda slut clarissa ward says it’s getting dangerous doing fake news all up in it:

    “If I’m getting it in the neck, Chris, I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with.”

    yes yes we can only imagine where cnn fake news propaganda slut chris cuomo is getting it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  85. @45 DCSCA

    DC DC DC

    Can’t you see?

    Your POV

    Perplexifies me

    To paraphrase Josey Wales, being defamed by the press ain’t no way to make a living.

    Pinandpuller (186028)

  86. 85. It has to be “a reckless disregard for the truth” I am not sure that applies to a passing reference to something that happened 6 years ago that is erroneous, but not made up.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  87. 85 – “For the folks in this thread who declare Palin is attempting to remain relevant – the NYT did her that favor by dint of its targeting her. She was made relevant through no choice of her own.”

    Oh, they know. Palin hate forces some people to basically put on a gorilla suit and heave feces in all directions.

    harkin (ce04df)

  88. It doesn’t accuse sarah Palin of being evil – it accuses her of being thoughtless, and here it is Democrats who need to learn the “lesson” since the basebal field attack was against Republicans. Maybe it is a they-started-it argument.

    Except that it was not thoughtless, because it didn’t cause those murders and attempted murders in Arizona and they aso had a slight inaccuracy about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  89. clarissa ward has an eating disorder doesn’t she

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  90. Bravo Palin. You deserve to put the NYT in a coffin.

    mg (31009b)

  91. yes yes your journey was a meandering one sarah

    but you have

    in year one of the Trumpian Ascendancy

    at last found purpose

    and you’re positively glowing

    give us a hug

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  92. Another reason for the snowflakes (but not the overwhelming majority of Native Americans for some reason) to go berserk:

    “The Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court Wednesday afternoon conceding that a Supreme Court decision last week in favor of an Asian-American band calling itself “The Slants” means that the NFL’s Redskins will prevail in the battle over efforts to cancel the team’s trademarks on the grounds that the name is disparaging to Native Americans.

    “The Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam [the Slants’ case] controls the disposition of this case,” Justice Department Civil Division attorney Mark Freeman wrote in the letter to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. “Consistent with Tam, the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pro-Football.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/06/28/washington-redskins-trademarks-240066

    harkin (ce04df)

  93. ugh

    native americans are involved?

    prepare to pay more for gas

    but it’s worth it to get off that filthy reservation quick quick quick as a bunny

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. yes yes between LA and Dallas I’ve had plenty of all things Getty plus I’m an old school indy film fan

    but

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  95. really the most i can contribute to this discussion is maybe suggesting we pause

    and really take stock of what we want a throw pillow to be and mean in early summer of 2017

    Mr. narciso?

    thoughts?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. Mike Barnicle is alive?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. Misty and tipsy need to be fired from a cannon, into the sun.

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. anytime Baton Rouge comes up I think of Pam from True Blood (who is an awesome person irl)

    and Scott Eric Kaufman

    Mr. SEK told me there was a Baton Rouge story he would tell me later

    but he didn’t

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. Well that first episode freaked me out seriously pikachu, its not at all like the way I read charlaine Perry. Who bow has a series set in Texas on NBC.next month

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. Is it just me, or does there seem to be a palpable shift in the political and media balance over the past couple of weeks?

    The more they shine the light, the more the cockroaches scurry.

    harkin (fcaff0)

  101. @87. P&P: editorializing, eh.

    “Sioux…”- G.A. Custer [Errol Flynn] ‘They Died With Their Boots On’ 1941

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  102. Is it just me, or does there seem to be a palpable shift in the political and media balance over the past couple of weeks?

    Hint: When was Trump’s last tweet.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. She had to hire Chris Kyle security team because of this blatant malpractice, curious sheriff dupnik is exactly the kind of corrupt official that Sullivan was intended for

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. whatever your politics, you can still go to starbucks and enjoy a hot cup of steaming feces with your new york times

    that’s your right as an American

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. 105 – “when was Trump’s last tweet?”

    Seven minutes ago and nine others today.

    harkin (ce04df)

  106. Was JD Salinger considered a “public figure”?

    Is there a certain point where a public figure gets a reset?

    Pinandpuller (186028)

  107. DCSCA

    I have a compromise: no monetary damages but Palin gets to do a drive by on the Times.

    Pinandpuller (186028)

  108. 111 – “I have a compromise: no monetary damages but Palin gets to do a drive by on the Times.”

    Are they still spouting the one where she hunts wolves from helicopters for enjoyment? Even Politifact said the claims were a bogus smear trying to pin Alaska’s attempts to control exploding wolf populations and turning into a Palin family fun-fest.

    harkin (ce04df)

  109. Yes that’s. Very tobvur in cheek:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/birmingham-counter-terror-arrest-alleged-spiritual-leader-majorca

    One winders was he in contact with anybody else in the midlands recently

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. @112 harkin

    The NYT’s would deliver papers from helicopters if it took a conservative out.

    Pinandpuller (0750d4)

  111. Opinion Pages are like a$$holes.

    The End

    Pinandpuller (0750d4)

  112. CNN Is now propagandizing against teh travel Ban by using refugee expert… Elmo Muppetti al-sheedmuhdrurs.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84) — 6/28/2017 @ 3:46 pm

    He’s trying to get the jihadis Bert and Ernie across the border. Arrest him.

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/bert2.jpg

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  113. Yes and they went with the rape kits filderall, a y a whole list of sundry claims that Charlie martin coyldnt debunk faster than they popped up.

    narciso (d1f714)

  114. Recall the author of the uva slander piece, wrote an incendiary piece about bachmam and suicides then there’s taibbi a garden slug if a different variety almost from the beginning

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. Like Zelig or Gump, NJ Rob… http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/937/953/a9e.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  116. When you’re a Xhe
    You’re a Xhe all the way
    From your first hormone shot
    To your last dyin’ day…

    http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2017-06-28/athens-teen-s-shooting-death-linked-feud-between-transgender-groups-police-say

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. That Ken White, who wears his heart of his left sleeve, doesn’t dismiss the suit with extreme snark tells me that the Times is going to be spending serious money, even if only on lawyers.

    bud (965acf)

  118. I have a compromise: no monetary damages but Palin gets to do a drive by on the Times.

    As long as it’s a ‘moon shot’ and the Times gets first dibs on the Polaroids —front and back side-after she swings by.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rIGrbo1MRA

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. 122, comecon, you know Slim Jim is going to make a plea por patria and have some narcos roll out 20 strong…she better bring her battle-tested new son in law as backup.

    urbanleftbehind (ee6f14)

  120. Way off topic, but she looks like a preview of the more famous Zuck’s spawn, much like Julie Louis Dreyfus is a preview of Salma and the French billionaire’s.

    urbanleftbehind (ee6f14)

  121. Thus, the key in a defamation claim is not whether a person made a statement of “opinion” or a statement of “fact”; it is whether a person made a statement that a jury or judge could say it was “provable false.” Political and moral judgments — like “taxes are bad” or “government is good” — are the kind of statements that cannot be “provable false.” It is those kind of opinions beyond the scope of libel law. Speculating on someone’s motives — like saying CNN is “desperate” to prove they are not “fake news” — is the kind of opinion not subject to being “provable false.” By contrast, 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.

    Additionally, there will be a reputation risk for the Times in how they defend themselves, limiting otherwise legal defenses like — “no one can know what’s true”; “our ethics guidelines are legally unenforceable”; “everybody knows our editorial page makes stuff up because they can as opinionated hacks, so this cannot be considered a credible statement of fact,” etc. The “too dumb to be a reporter” or “too partisan to be seen as true” or “too ridiculous to be believed” are the kind of legal defenses no media publication wants to make in court, or anywhere. Those kind of defenses work for comedians, not journalists.”

    http://lawnewz.com/opinion/can-palin-win-libel-suit-against-new-york-times-you-betcha/amp/

    harkin (ce04df)

  122. This is what happens if you speak truth to power, in caracas:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40439193

    narciso (d1f714)

  123. I’m commenting here without having first read either Ken White’s column — I’ll do that next — or any comments here. But I did read the complaint. It is of above-average competence, but it left me with several questions, mostly having to do with Palin’s choice of forum.

    NYT is certainly subject to suit in all 50 states, so I’m at a loss for why she filed this in federal court in Manhattan instead of in state court in Wasilla, with some Alaska-based co-defendant (e.g., the NYT’s Alaska distributor, or a website or newspaper that carried the NYT’s story) to prevent removal to federal court on diversity grounds.

    I don’t know anything about Alaska’s law on defamation. I’ve read some NY cases, though, and its defamation law is highly developed. Filing the case in NY doesn’t necessarily mean that the court will apply NY substantive law, but it will certainly apply the federal-court versions of the NY procedural laws. In defamation cases, federal courts will typically apply the substantive law of the states in which they’re situated, unless and until one litigant or another establishes that some other state’s substantive law would apply. But because there are such huge variations between various states’ laws on defamation, it’s not at all uncommon for the threshold choice of law inquiry to become outcome determinative.

    I also haven’t looked to see whether either New York or Alaska has a retraction law. Texas does, and its effect is generally pro-defendant. Texas also has some special procedural rules which give libel defendants all sorts of ridiculous special rights, like the right to take an interlocutory appeal mid-case after the defendant’s motion for summary judgment has been denied. But I have no idea whether there are analogs to that in New York or Alaska law.

    I generally would not want to be in federal court if I’m representing a defamation plaintiff. Federal judges are particularly quick to apply NYT v. Sullivan’s public figure rules very aggressively at an early stage in the case, often in response to an initial motion to dismiss without allowing any discovery.

    In addition to NY counsel, the complaint also lists some Florida lawyers; a quick glance at their website left me wondering why they’re in the case, which I don’t mean as a dig of any sort, but just something that I flagged as a curiosity.

    And I really can’t fathom why, given the other alternatives available to her, Palin would have wanted a jury drawn from the Southern District of New York — Manhattan, Westchester County, and a lot of pretty posh places (including Chappaqua).

    Perhaps I’ll find insights on these issues on Ken’s post or in comments here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  124. Hmm, okay. I misunderstood and thought Ken had written a post about the case on his blog. His tweets don’t really answer my questions.

    Leviticus is certainly correct that the most promising defense for the NYT will be the threshold determination of whether the false statements were matters of fact or matters of opinion. Of that, I’m sure, regardless of which state’s substantive law is used. And the language and tests employed by different states in making the fact/opinion distinction varies quite a bit. Texas law typically requires that something be an objectively verifiable statement of fact, and I don’t think any statement about whether someone incited something qualifies as “objectively verifiable.”

    But I’ve read a bunch of cases from other states that haven’t undergone the very thorough tort reform that Texas has, and I regularly see appellate opinions from various other states where my take-away is, “Nope, that may be a ‘fact’ as viewed by your state’s supreme court, but it wouldn’t be in Texas.” The effect of retractions is another thing that varies widely state-to-state. And I’ve made no effort to compare New York to Alaska law on any of these points.

    I don’t agree with Leviticus that it being published as an op-ed automatically makes everything within it an opinion. If the NYT had written “Sarah Palin paid Jared Lee Loughner $10k to kill and injure those people,” saying that on their opinion page would not immunize them or even help them.

    The first huge challenge in any defamation case is to simply get to a jury. It’s the very rare case which does that, especially if the plaintiff is unquestionably a general-purpose public figure, as Palin indisputably is. And on the rare case that a plaintiff can get to trial on, it’s very common for defendants to roll the dice rather than settle, because so many appellate courts are hostile to big jury verdicts from defamation cases.

    Without knowing more about the differences, if any, between NY and Alaska law, though, or how either of them vary from the Texas laws I work with regularly, I wouldn’t go as far as Ken’s tweets go. And I remain very puzzled by her choice of forum.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  125. Re this from #129: “I don’t agree with Leviticus that it being published as an op-ed automatically makes everything within it an opinion.”

    I ought not have paraphrased there, and those aren’t Leviticus’ words, and that may not be his position. If he was merely observing that you find more opinions on the op-ed pages than in the news pages, that’s not as true as it once was, but still probably true.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  126. She better hire “Bull” to pick the jury.

    mg (31009b)

  127. I have to agree with Beldar regarding Choice of Forum – I’d much rather try this case to an Ohio Jury. But the Retraction statutes are mostly about limiting Damages, not liability.

    Ohio’s provides:

    Under the Ohio retraction statute:

    A plaintiff must send a demand letter informing the publisher of the false statements and detail the true statements;
    If the plaintiff swears to the veracity of the statements, the publisher must “print, publish, and circulate” the corrected statements provided by the plaintiff in the next regular issue of the periodical or within forty-eight hours; and
    The statements cannot be altered, and must be published in a manner as similar as possible to the original article (e.g. it must be published in “the same color of ink, from like type, with headlines of equal prominence,” and placed in the same position as the original article.)

    Heh, wouldn’t it be honest for the NYTimes to make its retractions as prominent as its libels?
    http://www.dmlp.org/book/export/html/1832

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  128. There is no federal anti-SLAPP law for one thing.

    For another, New York’s anti-SLAPP law is very narrow, http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-new-york, should a federal court consider it substantive under the Erie doctrine (as has happened in other places recently). It does not apply to this kind of defamation.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. Seeing what they have printed in the daily news and the dispatch, I don’t think the libel law offers any protection in Alaska.

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. “Narrow” is an understatement for New York’s anti-SLAPP law. If I gambled, I’d give three-gets-you-five odds that it was enacted specifically for Donald Trump’s lawsuits against persons who objected to his construction projects.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. It does seem its open season on certain officials

    law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1978/2916-1.html

    Then you wonder why she had to spend so much on attys fees

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. I just read the Times’ own story on the lawsuit and it seems they still can’t help misrepresenting the facts (i.e. lying):

    “The Times later issued a correction, saying that there was no established link between political statements and the shooting and that the map circulated by Ms. Palin’s PAC had depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath the stylized cross hairs.”

    Might be nit-picking here but they issued two separate corrections and the one about the map never mentioned Ms. Palin as it did in the smear.

    And Erik Wemple at the WaPo points out another possible bit of ammo for Legal Team Palin:

    “Another brick in this wall of logic against the New York Times is a statement from James Bennet, the top editor at the New York Times’ editorial operation, to CNN attempting to salvage the piece’s respectability: “While it is always agonizing to get something wrong we appreciate it when our readers call us out like this. We made an error of fact in the editorial and we’ve corrected it. But that error doesn’t undercut or weaken the argument of the piece,” said the statement.
    Of course, a factual error of this magnitude cannot avoid undercutting and weakening the argument of the piece.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/27/sarah-palin-files-convincing-lawsuit-against-the-new-york-times-editorial-board/?utm_term=.d8c6b84655d3

    harkin (536957)

  133. Another beautiful Thursday!

    And Hillary! Clinton will nevah be POTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  134. Yes coronello definitely:
    dailycaller.com/2017/06/28/congress-toughest-immigration-bill-is-still-waiting-in-the-wings

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. …and it might still get scuttled. Nothing was as tough as the 2006 Sensenbrenner bill, the casus belli of the Marcha movement.

    urbanleftbehind (c93ddd)

  136. Yes this why can’t have nice things,

    narciso (d1f714)

  137. Dana,

    What the NYT refers to as a “fact” (in the context of an “error of fact,” especially) will likely not be dispositive for a court when assessing what is legally “fact” or “opinion.” Those are terms of art, for purposes of defamation suits, and have their own definitions. The ambiguity around the crosshairs on the Palin PAC map is more important than people seem willing to acknowledge.

    Beldar,

    In the same vein, i certainly wasn’t trying to say that everything in an “op-ed” is automatically an “opinion” for legal purposes, only that the jurisprudential requirements that statements be read in context will make the “op-ed” factor highly relevant for purposes of “opinion” analysis.

    Leviticus (a17229)

  138. I would bet money that this suit is dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.

    Leviticus (a17229)

  139. So what is the law for, so the press can incite violence, and don’t doubt that want the intent, specially what happened subsequently years later, that the press siftpedaled including the daily caller

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. She called out Obama for what he was, she. Walked out the thanaphilic aspects of the health care bill, the inflation that qe infinity was wreaking, the favoritism toward islamist whether in new York or in syria

    narciso (d1f714)

  141. “Good morning, kids. The penultimate day of the work week and of June. Looking back on the past six months, I don’t think I could have imagined the state of the nation in a Trump presidency. While there are many positive things happening, there are many troubling things as well. I think our society is at an inflection point; it’s just that when you’re living in the middle of it, it’s difficult to step away and read the tea leaves, as it were. The Media have completely exposed themselves for the propagandists that we always knew them to be, the Democrat Party electorally is in a shambles, the GOP wants to preserve, protect and defend the Leviathan at all costs, the unelected bureaucracy is in open revolt against the President, his allies in the administration and We The People, and President Trump is somehow defying the odds and staying alive – figuratively and literally – and perhaps even thriving amidst what is in effect a coup against him and the country.

    While there are so many things that we can be infuriated and disappointed by, there is much to be grateful for, not least of which is that Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States of America. For that alone, Donald Trump’s first term has succeeded beyond all expectation.”

    — J.J. Sefton

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  142. The bill could use work, certainly a drill bit and a power saw, it consider about this point in the cycle they arrested someone who actually tried to point out the cortuptuion was or eight years the landrieu stunt

    narciso (d1f714)

  143. as the propaganda slut media continues to churn out malicious and fanciful fake news fake news fake news

    with the malice sleaze and “mistakes” always directed towards the same group

    it’s important that these lowlife trashy fascists be held accountable

    and that includes the girly Murdoch boys and their trashy Fox News

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  144. “While there are so many things that we can be infuriated and disappointed by, there is much to be grateful for, not least of which is that Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States of America.”

    Your bar is so, so f*cking low. It’s pathetic, and not respectable to self-governing people.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  145. Its shirt hand for having Ben Carson, Tim price and Matt’s in the cabinet, opening up the two keyipelines, removing us from the extortion scheme what wA Paris accord

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. This is all about paragraph 5 of 12, of an New York Times editorial that consists of somewhat disconnected musings striving to reach a point that the editorial writers are happy with.

    The point thet the editorial seeks to make with the statements at issue here maybe is:

    That if James Hodgkinson was motivated by what Democrats and leftists said about Trump and Republicans, well, Republicans did something like that first – which isn’t true!)

    AND MAYBE THEY HAD A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT POINT. Because if they would have done the least bit of fact checking, they would have discovered this “members of Congress in the gunsights” prior event was not a good precedent.

    This is the paragraph at issue of the New York Times editorial, as corrected:

    Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

    This is the changed version. You can’t get the original at the New York Times website now, but you can get he correction, which ran one day later (probably not printed anywhere you’d go look for but included with the article online) which says:

    Correction: June 16, 2017

    An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.

    The online version had a link probably to the map, at least now)

    So there’s one sentence that’s just simply plain wrong, and it seems to rely on New York Times reporting or editorializing in 2011 as factual support. It doesn’t accuse Sarah Palin herself of doing anything wrong, but ratehr her policitcal actin committee, and what it says they did wrong was use too heated political rhetoric, which isn’t exactly defamatory anyway, or only mildly so. Of course it is a still something serious to say that someone unintentially triggered off a mass shootting, and what they did to trigger it off was something nobody should do in the first place. Someone could take offense at that, but it’s all an opinion anyway; an opinion, however, partially based on wrong facts.

    A good defense for the New York times, although it wouldn’t help their reputation that much, is that they relied on some other authrity and they most certainly did.

    While it may be that in the archives of the New York Times there is something saying that what they wrote is wrong, to win ths case wouldn’t Sarah Palin have to prove that that rebuttal was willfully disregarded?

    Nobody thought it important enough to check out. One person may have this to another and nobody thought it was wrong.

    In the liberal bubble, it had acquired the aura of truth, but many people outside the bubble knew it as a famous wrong accusation, because there was no reason whatsoever to suppose that Jared Lee Loughner had seen that website, or that it logically could insoire anyone to shoot someone – people recognize figures of sppech and art – or that his motivation had anything to do with mainstream or even off the mainstream Republican politics.

    The only thing he might have been angry at Gabby Giffords was that she treated him like an idiot who was so idiotic that he didn’t even know he was not being answered. Whenever he wrote to her, he got answered with form letters and so on. He had expressed some negative opinions about her to an acquaintance or two.

    But really, he was just looking to kill people – only as a bonus, he wanted someone he had some kind of grievance with.

    Right before the shooting, he asked her a question, and she took it as some sort of a riddle, and replied with a few words in Spanish. The question was probably just to give himself courage or maybe it was to give her another chance to take his philosophical questions seriously before he went ahead and shot her..

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  147. Sammeh he was a crazy nutbird that listened to art bell probably, it was sheriffs dupniks tesponsibulity tie keep him off the streets

    legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/southern-poverty-law-center-extremist-lists-used-to-silence-speech-and-speakers

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. 149- mirroring your profession to a “T”.

    mg (31009b)

  149. Paragraph 6 maybe also assumes that the Sarah Palin PAC accusation, which wss obviously brought in as support for a prior sentence, to be right. That went:

    At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right.

    Paragraph 6 follows up on that with:

    Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
    The idea here is that Republicans, as evidenced by Sarah Palin and/or her PAC, said things as bad or worse than what Hodgkinson said or read, so Republicans still are the more evil party.

    Now the New York Times did describe what allegedly happened in 2011, which meant other people could check it out, or decide it wasn’t equivalent – even the false version – or, as was the case, remembered that differently than what the New York Times editor(s) did.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  150. And I remain very puzzled by her choice of forum.

    I call it nice strategy.

    By using the NYT’s home, she avoids forum shopping charges.
    It allows a heads I win tails you lose approach to the public. If she loses, she can blame the hostile judicial environment and defendant’s home court advantage instead of anything on her side of the case. If she wins, she can say her case was so strong it won despite those factors.

    kishnevi (8f5d8c)

  151. Sarah Palin may hava little hope of winning a judgment, but maybe mainly wants to knock down thia story once and for all, or damage the credibility of the New York Times, and for that the forum that will get the most attention is the one for her to choose..

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  152. narciso @152.

    Sammeh he was a crazy nutbird that listened to art bell probably

    Did Alex Jones say anything about the government or anybody controlling people’s minds with grammar?

    That sounds kind of like Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984 (or what actually happpened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and maybe in North Korea) but in 1984 they did it with vocabulary, not grammer.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  153. @ Leviticus (#142): I agree with you that the NYT’s subsequent descriptions of its error as one of “fact” isn’t a binding legal admission that prevents it from arguing otherwise in court, and I further agree that a judge isn’t likely to so consider it. Typically courts describe the “fact/opinion” decision as a “question of law” for judges to decide, rather than a question of fact that can be submitted to a jury for decision. I also agree that courts are, and often do, consider contextual facts in making that “legal” determination, and to the extent this court does that, it will likely factor into the mix both the favorable (it was in an op-ed on the op-ed page) and unfavorable (NYT calling it an error of fact).

    I just don’t know why she’d pick Floyd Abrams’ den as the place to beard the lion, unless there’s something really unfortunate about the potential alternate forum in Alaska. Filing there in state court, with a non-diverse (i.e., Alaska-based) co-defendant added to prevent removal based on diversity of citizenship, would seem to me a better and incredibly obvious choice unless for some reason Palin thinks her home-state courts and juries would be hostile to her or her claims.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  154. I’ve never yet proposed a strategy to a client in which we would deliberately choose a more hostile forum. The case will probably get slightly more attention in NY than in Alaska, but only until there’s a dispositive motion filed and/or ruled upon. Filing and losing in NY would absolutely feed the NYT’s narrative, not Sarah Palin’s. So I’m unpersuaded by Mr. Finkelman’s or kish’s suggestion that New York City is the briar patch Sarah Palin wanted to be in.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  155. Re adding a non-diverse defendant to keep the case from being removed:

    I was hired a few years ago in exactly such a case, by the guy who was the non-diverse defendant. The target defendants were the author and publishing company who’s put out a book which contained the allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff, a multi-millionaire who was being represented by a long-time friend and former colleague of mine who’d been on the other (defense) side in lots of removal/remand fights and knew the benefit of a friendly state court judge. My guy, by contrast, had merely written a book review on a volunteer basis for his hometown newspaper, which ended up getting him and the newspaper sued for “re-publishing” the alleged libels from the book.

    I told my guy when he hired me that he was likely in the case only to prevent removal, and that he might even be voluntarily dismissed — as soon as enough time had run off the clock for the case to no longer be removable. But I also persuaded his homeowners’ insurance company that his volunteer book review didn’t fit within any exclusions to his standard-form homeowners’ policy, which included defamation claims so long as they didn’t arise from the policyholder’s business or trade. So the homeowners insurance company in turn hired (at its expense) a lawyer to take over my guy’s defense when they confirmed coverage to the extent of their policy limits. And he mostly kept quiet and stayed out of the line of fire during the first year of the litigation’s pendency, and sure enough the plaintiff’s lawyer nonsuited my guy (and the newspaper who’d published the book review) shortly after the one-year filing anniversary, after which removal was no longer a possibility.

    All that nevertheless did the clever plaintiff’s lawyer no help: Texas state courts are now as reflexively hostile, and indeed even moreso, than the federal courts when it comes to defamation claims. The author’s & publisher’s summary judgment motions were denied in part, but they were able (under special Texas rules for defamation cases) to take an interlocutory appeal, which resulted in the rest of the case also being thrown out. My friend never made it to a jury. But I think he had the case on a blended hourly-rate/contingent fee basis, so he didn’t lose money.

    Defamation cases are a rich man’s sport, and practically impossible for anyone else.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  156. @ Mr. Malyn: Texas law likewise confines the effect of retractions to mitigation of damages, especially punitive damages, and my impression is that’s near-universal in most states. Texas for many years had a statute which said that “any public apology, correction, or retraction of the libelous matter made and published by the defendant” was admissible “[t]o determine the extent and source of actual damages and to mitigate exemplary damages,” which was already the case at common law. But the Texas Legislature recently beefed that up with a new section on retractions which is much more specific and substantive. The plaintiff must have timely — within 90 days — have made a written request for a retraction, whose terms must state “with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory and, to the extent known, the time and place of publication,” among other particulars. The potential defendant then can request further confirmatory details before deciding whether to retract. There are also requirements that the retraction be “published with a prominence and in a manner and medium reasonably likely to reach substantially the same audience as the publication complained of.” The plaintiff then has an opportunity to challenge the means of the retraction.

    But if a plaintiff has skipped sending the demand for retraction, he can’t recover punitive damages unless he can also show actual malice (which Palin would have to do anyway, as a public figure, to recover even actual damages).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  157. I’ve never yet proposed a strategy to a client in which we would deliberately choose a more hostile forum.

    Yes, but you don’t think like Sarah, and I hope have had as few as possible clients like her.

    kishnevi (8f5d8c)

  158. Thinking this over, perhaps the most useful result for Sarah Palin would be a well-drafted set of Request for Admissions, where the NYTimes would have to admit under oath that not a single one of the “opinions” the Times have about her is based on fact (20 or so, one for each serious attack they have laid on her in the past 8 years). Follow this up with an interrogatory demanding a list of facts for each time they deny that their “opinion” is baseless.

    Perhaps she won’t win this time, but if later “opinions” were published in contradiction to the admissions, the next case would surely get to a jury.

    Of course, if the court dismisses before discovery, she can go rail against the Judges.

    Still, Beldar is correct, a state court is a preferable forum.

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  159. No plaintiff suing in his or her home state is going to be charged with forum shopping. No one could have faulted Palin for suing in Alaska, and since there’s no doubt that the NYT does business in Alaska and is subject to being sued there, there was no reason she had to go to the NYT’s home state. Only if she’d picked some other place — a place whether neither she nor the NYT “lives,” but with much more pro-plaintiff substantive and procedural laws (e.g., London) — would she have been subject to charges of forum shopping, which in this context is often called “libel tourism.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  160. It’s the rare week when I’m approached by fewer than three-to-five prospective clients wanting me to represent them on a contingent fee — typically now because of something nasty said on Facebook, but occasionally for something more provocative. So on average I spend a couple of hours every week explaining to people why they probably don’t have a viable defamation claim, but that even if they might have a glimmer of one, I’m not willing to gamble my time on it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  161. It’s the rare week when I’m approached by fewer than three-to-five prospective clients wanting me to represent them on a contingent fee — typically now because of something nasty said on Facebook, but occasionally for something more provocative. So on average I spend a couple of hours every week explaining to people why they probably don’t have a viable defamation claim, but that even if they might have a glimmer of one, I’m not willing to gamble my time on it.

    Celebrity clients, though, can often find lawyers who are willing to invest some time and maybe even some expense moneys “on spec” even if they don’t expect to get it back via settlement or trial. They’re out for the headlines and the other, more profitable business, those very public cases bring when they’re filed.

    I’m not saying that about Palin’s lawyers and this case. But I am curious whether her NY and FL lawyers are being paid by the hour, or are working on a contingent fee, or are instead on some sort of hybrid blend.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  162. “President Trump is somehow defying the odds and staying alive – figuratively and literally – and perhaps even thriving amidst what is in effect a coup against him and the country.”

    The truly remarkable thing is that with our political-media complex is caught up in an ever-escalating psychodrama – a group that very much includes most of the Republican congressional caucus – President Trump, despite his many noteworthy shortcomings, seems to be the only rational/competent actor. During his first 5 months in office, DJT has brought to the country’s elite as a whole the same degree of stupidity/insanity we saw on a more limited basis during the campaign season, while at the same time leading the nation with a steady – and conservative – hand. The contrast is striking.

    For the longest time, I’ve read and dismissed comments by Trump enthusiasts that the man is out of everyone’s league. With everyone else demonstrating a level of malice and incompetence which at times defies belief, I’m now beginning to think the Trump enthusiasts were right all along.

    Imagine, just 12 months ago I thought Donald Trump was the repulsive one.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  163. Fir six years she kept a civil tongue on the matter, even after such slander as well that ladled out on local talk radio, as well as the local mcclatchy fishwrsp, provoked that attack on her family when she was out of town that the daily mail did much to obfuscate.

    narciso (d1f714)

  164. I remember that CNN was recycling all the fake news about her in 2008, whereas Greta gave her a hearing on fox

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/880468609071558656

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. 158. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/29/2017 @ 9:30 am

    I also agree that courts are, and often do, consider contextual facts in making that “legal” determination, and to the extent this court does that, it will likely factor into the mix both the favorable (it was in an op-ed on the op-ed page) and unfavorable (NYT calling it an error of fact).

    No, this was an editorial on the editorial page. Still, an editorial, which is not held up to the high accuracy standards of a news article.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  166. Sammeh… did you sleep in a Holiday Inn last night?

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  167. Right on, Thor!

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  168. Cant believe the gleeful post about the bloody Mika tweets hasn’t hit yet….

    harkin (aeabd2)

  169. Palin – much like Trump – doesn’t fit the pre-conceived notion of what many believe constitutes decency, forthrightness, even-handedness, etc..

    Sad.

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  170. Yes, harkin. Just waiting for an outraged post…

    Colonel Haiku (607a84)

  171. @166 Beldar

    What’s your take on the Michael Richard’s Laugh Factory affair?

    A minor celebrity drop multiple N-bombs during a so called stand up act and Gloria Allread swoops in to cut a check for some black audience members.

    Absence this kind of thing happening in Canada, did her clients even have any cause to sue him?

    Pinandpuller (0cba72)

  172. ugh the new google news layout is a p.o.s.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  173. @ ThOR, who wrote (#167):

    For the longest time, I’ve read and dismissed comments by Trump enthusiasts that the man is out of everyone’s league. With everyone else demonstrating a level of malice and incompetence which at times defies belief, I’m now beginning to think the Trump enthusiasts were right all along.

    This kind of overgeneralization is atypical of you, and offensive to the “everyone else” you describe. There are more than two alternatives here. But yeah, if you want to go full Trumpkin, that’s your choice. I’ll miss engaging with you in the future.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  174. I realize you can’t yell n***** in the crowded Apollo Theater, unless you’re Chris Rock, Dave Chapele, Kat Williams…

    Pinandpuller (0cba72)

  175. I think ThOR is saying,”He’s a notso bad.”

    Pinandpuller (0cba72)

  176. When used in the context of making it out of high school, the “-a” version of the term has slowly but steadily gaining acceptance (_ _ _ _-a, we made it” is a Drake and Soulja Boy rap) – the catchphrase has made the news over the past few years.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  177. President Trump’s like Racer X he has our backs for so we don’t crash-em-up the mach V in the big race

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  178. @182. Translation: he’s a cartoon.

    With nukes.

    “D’oh!” – Homer Simpson [Dan Castellaneta] ‘The Simpsons’ Fox TV

    __________

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words of Wonder:

    “Well. Well, is there any way we can screw him? That’s what I mean. There must be ways.”- President Richard Nixon plotting revenge against ABC TV talk show host Dick Cavett for his Watergate programs w/convicted Watergate felons HR Halderman and Chuck Colson, White House Oval Office tapes, 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  179. I don’t especially like living in a world in which Donald Trump seems like the sanest, most credible, least corrupt actor on stage.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  180. You should probably expand your worldview a bit, then.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  181. you only say that cause you bias on Mr. Trump

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  182. @173. Only squirrels chase nuts.

    For the record, “Morning Joe” enjoyed its highest ratings ever in the second quarter of this year and has increased viewership in nine consecutive quarters.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/29/trumps-latest-attack-on-mika-brzezinski-is-dripping-with-sexism/?utm_term=.465cfcf8754b

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  183. mika’s a very nasty person and she always lets her emotions get the better of her

    this is why she doesn’t have any friends

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  184. 175. Colonel Haiku (607a84) — 6/29/2017 @ 11:04 am

    Sammeh… did you sleep in a Holiday Inn last night?

    No, I don’t catch the reference. I don’t thiink I’ve ever slept in a Holiday Inn.

    It seems like they’ve been around in substantial numbers since the 1960s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Inn

    1 in 1952, 4 in 1953, 23 at the beginning of 1956, and maybe 30 by the end of 1956, 50 in 1958, 100 in 1959, 500 by 1964, and number 1,000 opened in 1968.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  185. Not wanting to put words in Thor’s mouth, I don’t think his post was disparaging you Beldar, though I see where the generalization of malice to all nevertrumpers is overboard – but I read the post as a whole as disparaging the Media-Industrial complex, and those here who revel in the Media’s witch-hunt.

    You do not have to be a Trumpkin to admit that Media is on a witch-hunt, and a particularly nasty one.

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  186. @188. Donald McTrump is the Happy Meal to wash down w/a bleedin’ hot cuppa ‘Morning Joe.’

    “I’m, mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” – Howard Beale [Peter Finch] ‘Network’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  187. Maybe you can use Google on an Android phone, but Donald Trump can’t. His tweets aren’t up to the high standards of New York Times editorials, anyway.

    Ignore the bleeding comment, where’d he get the idea she’d had a facelift? Did he make that up? Did he ever say it before? Is that his excuse for not letting her join him? This is maybe going to be added to the New York Times list of lying Trump tweets. (mostly tweets. Sometimes it is the same lie repeated, as in saying China stopped being a currency manipulator after he started talking about it. It actally seems to have stoped in 2014, and now they are manipulating their currency the other way. They NYT did’t add many after about June 8 – maybe their standards for categorizing something as a lie rose)

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

    See:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-mika-brzezinski-bleeding-facelift-2017-6

    While the surgeon advises people who had facelifts not to go out in public for a few weeks, if theer is any bleeding that should only be the first or second day. The reason for not going out in public is that they look bad. Swollen and things like that. It’s also mildly risky.

    https://www.realself.com/facelift/answers/2-weeks-post-op

    http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-mika-brzezinski-trump-face-lift-2017-6

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  188. Sammy, Mrs. Morning Joe and her hubby are riding the anti-Trump wave, Trump strikes out indiscriminately, as we all expect.

    No one voted for Trump as a class act, just the least bad option.

    He’s actually governing better than that, with the exception of his personal counterattacks.

    Steven Malynn (d29fc3)

  189. I rolled out of bed this morning and read the online news with my morning coffee – to predictable effect. I posted my comment as a reaction to what I had read and with the unintentional hyperbole that comes from grumpiness. I wasn’t disparaging you, Beldar, or anyone else here at PP.

    I can’t be the only one who struggles with this.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  190. Palin – much like Trump – doesn’t fit the pre-conceived notion of what many believe constitutes decency, forthrightness, even-handedness, etc..

    She fits it a lot better than he does.

    He’s actually governing better than that, with the exception of his personal counterattacks.

    That’s kind of like saying that, other than a stray iceberg, crossing on the Titanic was a wonderful experience.

    kishnevi (5a999e)

  191. And the former point, We concur,

    narciso (d1f714)

  192. @ ThOR: Thanks. I’ve been known to go a bit hyperbolic myself from time to time, and hereby award you three free tickets to remind me of same without rebuke from me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  193. There is an unmistakable arc to life. I love the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High. When it came out in ’82, I identified with Bradley. Later, it was the decaffeinated science teacher. Now it’s Mr. Hand – and, somehow, that pleases me.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  194. 193. Steven Malynn (d29fc3) — 6/29/2017 @ 1:27 pm

    No one voted for Trump as a class act, just the least bad option.

    He’s actually governing better than that, with the exception of his personal counterattacks.

    yes he is. He governs much more sesibly, and with moe thought, than some of his tweets.

    I think it had looked like this kind of stuff – not the nicknames – but the irrelevant and often wrong, counterattacks, had stopped.

    Maybe one or two of the matters they raised hit the mark, and he doesn’t know what to do in such cases.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5965 secs.