Verdict comes a day after the judge decided he would dismiss the case after the jury reached a decision.
A Manhattan federal court jury ruled that the New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial that linked her to a mass shooting in 2011 that killed six people and wounded Gabby Giffords.
The jury was unanimous in its decision.
The 2017 editorial was about gun violence and rhetoric. The author “incorrectly suggested that an ad circulated by Ms. Palin’s political-action committee inspired the Arizona spree.”
From The New York Post:
The language about the 2011 shooting was written in by [former editor of the editorial pages James] Bennet and claimed there was a “clear” link between the shooting and “political incitement,” in part because of the map.
“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,” the editorial stated.
The Times changed the article and made an apology.
On Monday, Judge Rakoff said he would dismiss the case after the jury reached their verdict because he believed Palin’s team did not make the actual malice case:
The jury’s decision Tuesday, which was unanimous, came a day after the judge in the case indicated he would dismiss the lawsuit against the newspaper, saying Palin’s attorneys produced a lack of evidence to suggest the news organization acted recklessly or knowingly published false material about her.
“I think this [was] an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times,” U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said in court on Monday. “The law here sets a very high standard [for actual malice]. The court finds that that standard has not been met.”
Public figures like Palin have to prove actual malice. “Actual malice” means the defendant acted as such “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.