A federal jury has ruled that The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial on gun violence. The court found no evidence of actual malice, confirming that the error was an honest mistake promptly corrected.
Jury Clears New York Times of Defamation in Palin Lawsuit
On Tuesday, a jury in Manhattan federal court concluded that The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin. The trial, which lasted nearly two weeks, revolved around a 2017 editorial connecting Palin’s political action committee to political rhetoric linked to a mass shooting. The jury reached its verdict after just over two hours of deliberation.
Palin Claims Editorial Harmed Her Reputation
Sarah Palin testified that the editorial caused emotional distress and increased death threats against her. She claimed the article significantly damaged her reputation by implying that her PAC contributed to a violent political climate. Her legal team argued the Times acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
Editorial Correction and Public Apology
The New York Times corrected the article within 14 hours, acknowledging the mistake. The correction stated that the paper had incorrectly linked Palin’s PAC to the 2011 Arizona shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Former editorial page editor James Bennet issued a public apology during the trial, expressing deep regret over the error.
Arguments from Palin’s Legal Team
Kenneth Turkel, Palin’s attorney, urged jurors to hold the newspaper accountable, claiming that Palin’s public image suffered significantly. He emphasized the emotional toll the editorial had on Palin, arguing for compensatory damages to provide her closure.
Defense Maintains Error Was Honest
Felicia Ellsworth, representing The New York Times, insisted there was no malicious intent. She highlighted that the correction was made promptly and transparently. She stressed that the legal threshold for defamation against public figures was not met, as no evidence showed intentional falsehood.
Legal Standard: Actual Malice Not Proven
As a public figure, Palin had to prove that the Times acted with “actual malice”—a high standard requiring proof that the publication knowingly printed false information. The jury found no such evidence, siding with the newspaper.
Background of the Case
The editorial was published after a politically motivated shooting in 2017 targeting a Republican congressional baseball team. It incorrectly suggested that Palin’s PAC was linked to a similar earlier incident. Palin filed the defamation suit in 2017.
Previous Dismissal and Case Revival
In 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff initially dismissed Palin’s claims while the jury deliberated. However, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reinstated the case, citing procedural errors during the original trial.
COMMENTS