New York Times editorial practices underwent withering scrutiny at times during the second day of Sarah Palin‘s defamation lawsuit trial against the outlet on Friday.
The trial in U.S. District Court in New York began Thursday and has potentially broad implications over the future of U.S. libel law. Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee, is asking jurors to hold the New York Times accountable for a “horrific and debunked” 2017 editorial pertaining to gun control.
To win as a public figure, Palin would have to show “actual malice,” meaning the outlet knew negative information about Palin in the editorial was wrong and still chose to run it.
The New York Times’s editorial asserted a 2010 map released by Palin’s political action committee, which featured stylized crosshairs over 20 Democratic House districts, held a connection to the January 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. The New York Times amended the editorial within two days, noting no direct connection between the shooting and Palin’s ad.
Attorneys for the former Alaska governor told jurors, “We are not here trying to win your votes for Gov. Palin or any of her policies,” arguing the outlet committed libel with “actual malice” and damaged Palin’s burgeoning career as a political commentator.
Palin, 57, filed a lawsuit against the New York Times in August in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges a 2017 editorial by Elizabeth Williamson defamed her when it linked her to the 2011 deadly shooting that seriously wounded Giffords.
SARAH PALIN TESTS POSITIVE FOR COVID-19, DELAYING NEW YORK TIMES LAWSUIT
Palin’s legal team contends its lawsuit meets the “actual malice” standard of libel and defamation, enshrined in the 1964 Supreme Court ruling New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
“There was no link established between Gov. Palin and that shooting,” Palin’s attorney Shane Vogt said in opening statements Thursday. “There was no link that demonstrated that Palin was responsible for the death of six people.”
Two days after the New York Times editorial was published, corrections were added by James Bennet, the former editorial page editor, saying the outlet had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between the political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and that it “incorrectly described” the map.
That showed the New York Times was not trying to defame Palin and had quickly owned up to an honest mistake, he said.
“Bennet and the board were especially conscious of not writing a one-sided piece,” David Axelrod, an attorney for the New York Times, said in his opening statement Thursday. “The goal is to hold both political parties accountable. The political Left and the political Right — they are both responsible for inflammatory rhetoric unnecessarily demonizing the political enemies.”
Axelrod also asserted the news publication did not harbor ill will toward Palin, saying, “The editorial was not even about her.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The former governor’s case comes as two Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have considered whether they should reexamine the Sullivan case that set the “actual malice” standard. Because her lawsuit is filed in federal court, the case could ultimately be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon appeals.
Palin’s libel case against the New York outlet marks the first one to go to trial in nearly 18 years, the Washington Post reported. The trial faced delays from Jan. 24 after Palin tested positive for COVID-19.
