Photo Credit:The Hollywood Reporter
Push notifications, the actual malice standard and the odds of an appeal: attorneys analyze the newspaper’s strange, but not surprising, win in its defamation fight with Sarah Palin.
New York Times
winning its defamation fight with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin isn’t necessarily unexpected. But, when you throw in a federal judge indicating he’d dismiss the case while the jury was still deliberating, modern technology that made several of the jurors aware of that decision before they reached a verdict and recent criticism of the actual malice standard, it’s not exactly business as usual, either.
To summarize nearly five years of litigation: Palin in 2017 sued
for defamation over a gun violence editorial that linked one of Palin’s political action committee ads to the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson that seriously injured then-U.S.
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The paper quickly issued a correction explaining no link had been established between the PAC ad and the shooting. She said its reaction to public backlash was “woefully insufficient,” and argued the paper knew there was no connection, noting multiple other
pieces published around the same time that had refuted the idea.
For More Details : The Hollywood Reporter