Judge Tosses Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against The New York Times, Says No Actual Malice
from the more-speech-still-better-than-shutting-people-up dept
On June 14th, the New York Times published an editorial concerning violent rhetoric being deployed during political races. In it, the author made an incredibly bad claim:
Was this attack [by Hodgkinson] evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
This just simply wasn't true. To begin with, Palin's map contained only political districts under stylized crosshairs, not faces of legislators. Not only that, but there's been no conclusive link between Palin's crosshair map and Loughner's shooting. This was noted in two corrections published by the New York Times the next day, which also excised the two false statements.
Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for defamation a few weeks later because it apparently just wasn't enough to catch a "fake news" purveyor making some truly laughable assertions in an op-ed. The defamation suit has died a quick death, although Palin's claims were investigated with a bit more thoroughness than usual once the parties had entered their motions.
An examination of the run-up to the publication of the erroneous op-ed showed there was no actual malice in the New York Times' assertions -- just some really bad op-edmanship. The statements were provably false, which is key to defamation claims, but there also has to actual malice. And while many people think they know what's meant by actual malice, it's probably not what you think. In the legal context, actual malice requires "knowledge" of falsity before publication or reckless disregard. It doesn't just mean that you were trying to be mean (indeed, you could argue that "actual malice" doesn't require any... um... actual... malice). In this case, the court just can't find any knowledge of falsity -- and thus, no actual malice. [PDF link]
[E]ven then, a defamation complaint by a public figure must allege sufficient particularized facts to support a claim of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, or the complaint must be dismissed.
Here, as already mentioned, the complaint fails on its face to adequately allege actual malice, because it fails to identify any individual who possessed the requisite knowledge and intent and, instead, attributes it to the Times in general. This will not suffice.
The court also points to the proactive measures taken by the Times to correct the misstatements after they were brought to its attention as evidence of a lack of actual malice. The corrections weren't prompted by a lawsuit or threats of a lawsuit, but rather by readers displeased the Times would make a connection between Palin and Loughner that had never been established.
Even if the Times hadn't made these immediate efforts, the court still would likely have cut the paper as much slack as it could, given the First Amendment implications of the lawsuit.
Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States. In the exercise of that freedom, mistakes will be made, some of which will be hurtful to others. Responsible journals will promptly correct their errors; others will not. But if political journalism is to achieve its constitutionally endorsed role of challenging the powerful, legal redress by a public figure must be limited to those cases where the public figure has a plausible factual basis for complaining that the mistake was made maliciously, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity.
To entertain the theory the press can be held civilly responsible for swiftly-corrected errors would chill reporting on pretty much anything. To take the press to court is to take the First Amendment to court. A higher standard must be met by plaintiffs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: actual malice, defamation, first amendment, free speech, public figure, sarah palin
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whoever does the web design at Techdirt should put this paragraph at the top of any page under the “free speech” tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stylised Crosshairs ?
Kinda like saying that giving somebody the middle finger is a threat because you've got a stylised gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
If the language surrounding the map had not raised the spectre of violence, perhaps you would have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
It doesn't cease to be a compass rose because someone uses it in a ridiculous way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
A compass rose would be nonsensical in this context, and if misused to be like a crosshair functionally becomes a crosshair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
No. Not when the ad is accompanied with the text "We'll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight..."
Giffords' election opponent didn't help by running ads like "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Now - given the point made by AC about people under 30 just before your comment - if you want to argue that whoever did that graphic *thought* they were crosshairs and used it accordingly ..... you might have a point.
But it doesn't change the fact that a rose is a rose is a rose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
You're the only one seeing unicorns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
In instances such as this one, we can go to what is known as “the moron in a hurry” test.
Assume that the “moron” in question was given a brief look at the map and was told about the language only Sarah Palin used in connection with it. Now ask yourself whether the “moron” would think those symbols were crosshairs or stylised compass points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
A compass rose would indicate 8 directions usually, not 4. Do a Google image search on compass rose. At the very least if they meant to put a compass rose there they went out of their way to find the most crosshair-like compass they could find and therefore, considering the language used, any misinterpretation is on them.
Calling a cow a unicorn does not magically make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Unbelievable that any real person remains interested for so long, made an account, yet doesn't comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
I'd call Plain a tool, but tools are useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Kinda like saying that giving somebody the middle finger is a threat because you've got a stylised gun.
Apparently you're not familiar with the US school system's 'zero tolerance' policy,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Bravo on coming up with something other than the oft-used "surveyors marks" to try and brush away the implications of this ad. It does raise the question of why people are so desperate to pretend this wasn't what it was, rather than accept is was in bad taste and try to avoid the same mistake in future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Kinda like how a bat becomes a murder weapon when it is used to beat someone to death.
And this:
"The worst part of all this is that what was on the map were NOT crosshairs of any sort"
Wow! That was the worst part, really, not that an empty headed politician MAY have incited some wacko to try to kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they put as much emphasis on the correction as they do the original false statement, I'd believe they weren't acting deliberately to smear people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aim shotgun at foot.
No it isn't. This kind of nonsense undermines trust in journalism far worse than the screechings of the Orange One.
This is another good case of people (or rather entire industries) that don't really know what's good for them. They think they do but they are woefully mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aim shotgun at foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a fair complaint about corrections in general, but it's not accurate in this case. Here's the Times article in question; the false accusation about Palin is made in the back half of the fifth paragraph. It's in regular-size font, "below the fold" in the online version, and according to the note at the bottom appeared on page A24 of the print edition.
I'm not sure where they put the correction in the print edition, but it's at the bottom of the article in the online edition. It would probably be better to put it at the top, though I suspect that most people who read halfway through the article are probably going to read to the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All corrections are to be placed in the same location, and use the same styling and font, as was used for the article being corrected.
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Behind the Techdirt Iron Curtain
Shiva's complaint is better, right? Mike and Leah had the requisite knowledge and intent, right? Their allegations will suffice, right?
Goodbye for now, my little post. I hope to see you in the future, after Techdirt holds it for hours, days or forever.
This is your friendly Shiva supporter, signing off for now, behind the iron curtain of Techdirt censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Behind the Techdirt Iron Curtain
Stop wasting everyone's time with ignorant comments.
A truthful statement made in malice is not defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Behind the Techdirt Iron Curtain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
…what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless there's a new animal-mascot political party I hadn't heard about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Furries lack the political clout to pull that off—and even if they could do it, you would never get them to agree on which animal to turn into the mascot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since all citizens are also journalists now, why should there be a double standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]