The judge in Sarah "Mooselini" Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times has said he's going to dismiss the case (all of it, Katie!):
Judge Jed S. Rakoff was impressed with an email from then-New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet on June 14, 2017. “I really reworked this one,” wrote Bennet to colleague Elizabeth Williamson that evening. “I hope you can see what I was trying to do. Please take a look.”
Those four words — “Please take a look” — impressed Rakoff to the point that he cited them in announcing on Monday that he will dismiss former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the Times regarding the editorial that Bennet had “reworked.” The ruling came as the jury in the case was still deliberating on its merits and responded to a Times motion under a federal rule that allows the judge to determine a case once a party has been “fully heard” on a complaint.
“I don’t mean to be misunderstood,” explained Rakoff. “I think this is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times.” Yet Palin and her attorneys, the judge determined, hadn’t put forth sufficient evidence to satisfy the demands of New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court ruling which established that public officials — and later, a wider group of “public figures” — could only claim defamation if the offending media outlet had knowingly published a falsehood or proceeding with “reckless disregard” of its truth or falsity. [snip]
The journalistic implications of Rakoff’s ruling are wide-ranging. The timing of his announcement — which comes during the second day of jury deliberations — creates a problem for all parties. Figuring that the case will eventually be appealed, Rakoff said that the appeals court will benefit from having a jury verdict alongside his ruling. Should the jury rule for Palin, the appeals court could simply reinstate the jury action without having to order a new trial. All that said, does Rakoff really think that, in 2022, an un-sequestered jury won’t catch wind of his ruling?
This is a case that had us wishing going in that both side could lose, Palin because, well, Palin, and the Times because, well, the Effing Times. But, assuming Palin eventually appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, she'll have some supporters on the Republican Supreme Court who believe 1964's landmark New York Times v. Sullivan should be overturned. The consequences of that happening would, of course, be significant and devastating to what remains of a free press in this country:
Defamation law here, in all likelihood, would quickly resemble British law, where any factual inaccuracy in a news article makes the publisher liable for damages—even if the publisher had no reason to know that there were mistakes in the story. In the UK, threats of libel lawsuits often dissuade newspapers from publishing important allegations, for fear that they will be ordered to pay large damages.
Sarah Palin will have her day in court, but she’s unlikely to prevail under the current law. Palin is also not going to be able to get any court below the Supreme Court to overrule the “actual malice” standard. Since we are years away from any potential appeal by Palin reaching the Supreme Court, it is too soon to say whether she could get the Supreme Court to rewrite the law at that time.
A media that already panders to corporate and political interests further constrained by a smothering defamation law -- what a boon to the autocrats!
UPDATE: The jury backs up Judge Rakoff by rejecting Palin's libel claim.
