But would Fox News and its prime-time pundits really want to see public officials have an easier time suing (and winning) lawsuits for defamation? Remember that right now, Fox News is being sued by voting technology companies Dominion and Smartmatic.ĬNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told Darcy, “Fox needs those protections more than The New York Times at the moment. On one hand, you have Palin, a favorite of conservatives, in a legal battle against the so-called “liberal” New York Times. Meanwhile, it will be curious to see how conservative outlets, such as Fox News, treat the case. Would Palin have a chance with the Supreme Court?įirst Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous told CNN’s Oliver Darcy, “I don’t think the Court will do that because the Times decision is such a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence and it has been endorsed over and over again by Justices across the political spectrum for many years, even though two Justices recently urged that it be revisited.”īut it’s not completely out of the question. And Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have suggested they would revisit the standard set by The New York Times v. Emphasis on “could.”) Palin and her legal team already suggested that if they lose, they will take their case to the Supreme Court in hopes of challenging the Sullivan ruling. Sullivan makes it extremely difficult for any public official to prove malice.īut an expected ruling in the Times’ favor likely will not be the end of it, but just the beginning of what could be a major change in the law. That’s partly because The New York Times v. Most legal experts agree that Palin’s chances of winning the case are pretty low. As The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple wrote, “the case will help demarcate the line between really bad journalism and libelous journalism.” The Times’ defense was that it was an honest mistake and that they immediately fixed it. So that’s what Palin must prove: that the Times not only defamed her, but they knew what they wrote was false or that they recklessly disregarded whether the claims were true or not. That decision ruled that not only must public officials prove defamation, but that the news outlet did it with “actual malice.” ![]() But now the federal courts will hear the case.Īt the heart of this matter is the landmark 1964 case of The New York Times v. The Times immediately corrected and apologized for the error. To catch you up, Palin sued the Times in 2017 over an editorial that wrongly linked the 2011 shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords to a map circulated by Palin’s PAC that showed certain electoral districts under the crosshairs. Shares have closed 2.6% higher on the day.An intriguing defamation case gets underway today: former Alaska governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin v.Almost half of NYT subscribers open at least one newsletter on any given week, says the company's head of product, Alex Hardiman.several of the more popular ones, such as David Leonhardt's Morning Newsletter and Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook, will stay free. The NYT currently publishes more than 50 newsletters that reach an audience of nearly 15 million people every week.Meanwhile, eight existing news-section newsletters (covering subjects including politics, technology, sports and wellness) will be made subscriber-only.They'll be joined by seven news Opinion newsletters (including new entries from Kara Swisher, Tressie McMillan Cottom, and Jay Caspian Kang). Existing newsletters from Opinion columnists Jamelle Bouie, Paul Krugman and Frank Bruni will go behind the subscriber paywall.16, at least 18 newsletters will be available only to NYT subscribers. The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) is applying some revenue-stream pressure by rolling out subscriber-only newsletters, covering a swath of news and opinion writers.Allard1/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |