The Sarah Palin Defamation Suit

This case went to trial today in a New York federal court. I hadn't heard of it until last week when it was delayed due to Palin testing positive for CoVid, but it strikes me as a significant case which deserves greater publicity.

Based on the 1964 standard, under which public figures must show actual malice to prevail, it seems certain that Palin will lose in the trial court. However, it is likely that she will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could then revise the standard enunciated in 1964. Two justices have already indicated a desire to do so.

The absence of malice is evident from the fact that the Times immediately retracted its editorial statement that Palin's PAC had "incited" the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

The case was originally thrown out by the trial judge on the basis that Palin's petition stated no actionable claim. However, the appeals court reinstated it on procedural grounds, and now it is going to trial. It is noteworthy that the appeals court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, and in fact pointed out that Palin has a high bar to surmount in order to prevail.

Palin's case is so laughably weak that one hardly knows where to begin. She is clearly a public figure, and a controversial one at that. Her PAC did in fact publish a map with crosshairs on 20 Congressional Districts. The only problem was that the Times editorial said that this map "incited" the crazed gunman who shot Gabby Giffords.

Within hours of the publication of the editorial, the Internet blew up with criticism, because there was no evidence that the gunman had ever seen the map. The Times immediately issued a correction and apology, within hours of the publication. This obviously negates any "actual malice", or "reckless disregard" of the truth.

Palin claims she has suffered damages because her "budding career" as a political commentator was derailed. The facts are that her so-called budding career was ended two years before, in 2015, when FOX News terminated her contract as a political commentator. She has suffered no damages, and cannot prove otherwise. Her attorneys are simply going through the motions at this point, anxious to get this whole fiasco over with, and probably disappointed that their case wasn't thrown out prior to trial.

It is hard to understand why any public figure still feels compelled to sue for libel in the post-1964 era. I can think of no such case that has succeeded. Spectacular failures include William Westmoreland's case againt CBS, and Ariel Sharon's case against Time magazine. The idea here is that if a falsehood is said against a public figure, that person has the ability to correct the record immediately with a press conference. That's what it means to be a public figure!