Sarah Palin just lost her lawsuit against the New York Times. Good.

Source: Washington Examiner | August 29, 2017 | Tom Rogan

Sarah Palin has lost her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. Accepting, Tuesday, a motion by the Times to dismiss Palin’s lawsuit, Judge Jed Rakoff explained his reasoning.

He noted that “… each and every item of alleged support for plaintiff’s [Palin] claim of actual malice consists either of gross supposition or of evidence so weak that, even together, these items cannot support the high degree of particularized proof that must be provided before plaintiff can be said to have adequately alleged clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.”

It might infuriate some of Palin’s supporters, including President Trump, but this ruling isn’t surprising. As I predicted back in June, Palin was destined to lose for two simple reasons: Her case was very weak, and she could not reach the evidentiary standards required by U.S. civil law. U.S. defamation law is designed to preserve the right of individuals to speak out on matters of public concern.

As Judge Rakoff clarifies in relation to the Times, “What we have here is an editorial, written and rewritten rapidly in order to voice an opinion on an immediate event of importance, in which are included a few factual inaccuracies somewhat pertaining to Mrs. Palin that are very rapidly corrected. Negligence this may be; but defamation of a public figure it plainly is not.”

The key takeaway: Negligence is not defamation.

Regardless, this is good news for America. Whatever one thinks of Palin’s politics, it is absolutely critical that we maximize our ability to scrutinize persons of public influence or power. As I’ve explained, Europe provides clear evidence as to why defamation laws — at least those pertaining to public figures — chill free speech and induce societal ills. Were we to allow for undue litigation against publications that report or express opinions on matters of public concern, we would chill their incentive to address those issues. And the outcome would be deeply problematic: The powerful would operate in the shadows and find new space for ongoing corruption, collusion, and malfeasance.

…….

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.