The New York Times offered a brilliant argument for why the defamation lawsuit against them by Sarah Palin should be dismissed.
The former Alaska governor slapped the Times with the lawsuit in June over an editorial that tied Palin to the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The publication corrected its piece and issued an apology, but Palin said the Times’ “half-hearted Twitter apologies” were not enough.
The Times filed a motion last month seeking to dismiss the case but Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York said he needed the testimony of the editorial’s author to make that decision, according to the Times.
NYT Editorial Writer Must Testify in @SarahPalinUSA Defamation Lawsuithttps://t.co/hcqRyHO8xJ
— johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) August 11, 2017
But the publication argued in its dismissal request that it was unreasonable to assume that the editors actually even read the New York Times.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The New York Times is claiming the Palin case should be dismissed because it is unreasonable to assume the Editors read the New York Times. https://t.co/QyuRd9HFmd
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) August 10, 2017
Even the NY Times own editors don’t want to read the crappy rag. Sounds legit.
— Todd Simmerman (@toddsimmerman) August 10, 2017
In his order, the judge noted that one of the questions raised by the dismissal request was “whether the complaint contains sufficient allegations of actual malice, an essential element of the claim.”
New filing in @SarahPalinUSA v. @NYTimes: ~Util – Set Hearingshttps://t.co/V8pd8MkT4Z pic.twitter.com/olDNEgtJLx
— Big Cases Bot (@big_cases) August 10, 2017
“For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them, Rakoff wrote.
Looks like Trump dossier firm pulled a fast one when handing over docs to Sen. Judiciary Committee
In a nutshell, the Times needs to prove to the court that its own editors do not always read the New York Times.
Lets see if I’ve got this straight
It is unreasonable to think that the editors of the New York Times read the New York Times? https://t.co/MtHrQqCiny
— David Burton (@HalfTangible) August 10, 2017
Am I alone in finding this totally crazy? https://t.co/34D5rpBD99
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) August 10, 2017
I’m sorry Lee, I thought you were making a joke. But it is actually true. Amazing.
— Jeffrey (@Imusually) August 10, 2017
SOMEBODY has to read it.
— PegLeg™ (@PegLegPilot) August 10, 2017
Imagine if we had someone calles a “media reporter” to mock this argument on his own show. @brianstelter https://t.co/34D5rpBD99
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) August 10, 2017
In order to determine if there are sufficient allegations of actual malice on the part of the Times, Times editorial page editor James Bennet will be testifying next week per the judge’s order.
Twitter users found the Times’ reason for dismissing the lawsuit nothing short of laughable.
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
Great! The NYT editorial writer must testify under oath that he did not know of news reports in own newspaper that belied what he wrote.
— Ken Barnett (@kenaviba) August 10, 2017
I’m afraid they may have Mrs. Palin here. I mean, what reasonable person reads the Times?
— Tony so right! (@Random_Tony) August 10, 2017
That is totally believable! I didn’t think they even had editors! #CaseDismissed!
— Jack Custer (@MartinCuster95) August 10, 2017
— Jeremy (@The_Smirker) August 11, 2017
Wow. That’s just… wow.
— Todd White (@hecubus1st) August 10, 2017
Isn’t that their actual job?
— Techni Myoko (@NeoTechni) August 10, 2017
Apparently, even the editors of @nytimes or @NYTOpinion don’t read the biased, incoherent drivel.https://t.co/ff2UScL44O
— BonkPolitics (@BonkPolitics) August 11, 2017
Again their only defense is “we don’t read out own paper” which makes the NYTimes look idiots so even if case dismissed it’s a victory
— M.Joseph Sheppard (@SHEPMJS) August 11, 2017
Gorka shuts up MSNBC hosts squealing about Trump silence on mosque bombing: ‘Count to ten…’
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Frieda@bizpacreview.com
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.
- ‘Are we next?!’ Kilmeade breaks down shady FBI actions, concludes Trump justified in his outrage - August 30, 2022
- Grandfather throws down with aggressive kangaroo that attacked his dogs, but who really won? - June 4, 2022
- ‘My name is Dr. Robinson’: Proud abortionist snaps at Chip Roy calling her ‘Miss’ during hearing - May 19, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
