Palin case against NY Times

[GeoFisher]

So,

IN the lawsuit that Palin filed against the New York Times........

The judge determined that malice could not be shown, even though the editor deliberately manipulated images that changed targets for congressional districts to putting the targets over house members in that district.

I honestly think the judge "punted".

This is all based on Sullivan v NYT from the 60's, and I definitely believe Palin will probably take this to the supreme court, where the court might re investigate the Sullivan v NYT case.

It is a free speech issue, but I personally believe Sullivan v NYT got it wrong.

WE shall see.

Later,

Geo

[Devils Horse]

So,

IN the lawsuit that Palin filed against the New York Times........

The judge determined that malice could not be shown, even though the editor deliberately manipulated images that changed targets for congressional districts to putting the targets over house members in that district.

I honestly think the judge "punted".

This is all based on Sullivan v NYT from the 60's, and I definitely believe Palin will probably take this to the supreme court, where the court might re investigate the Sullivan v NYT case.

It is a free speech issue, but I personally believe Sullivan v NYT got it wrong.

WE shall see.

Later,

Geo

NYT is a Dimocrat party rag with sagging credibility. Hope they're eventually forced to pay her along with many others they've attacked on behalf of their handlers.

[jcb]

I personally believe Sullivan v NYT got it wrong.

If it's not malice, what's your proposed standard for libel?

[GeoFisher]

If it's not malice, what's your proposed standard for libel?

If you slander someone, it is slander.....The bar is that you had to do it with malice intent.

I'm sorry, just because someone is in the public eye does NOT mean you can say whatever the crap you want. the NYT took a campaign poster from the palin team, painted targets on PEOPLE, and then said it came from teh palin campaign.

If that is NOT malicious intent, I'm not too sure what the eff it is.

Just take the sandman case.........Nick Sandman won his slander cases, because he's not in the public eye. I think the standard for libel should be equally met........public or private citizen.

Now, I understand that deep pockets could say whatever they wanted, and prob get away with it, because well.....deep pockets, but you know what. Maybe not. Deep pockets had to pay Sandman a **** ton of money.

Now, IMAGINE my public versus private slander standard. As it is, TRUMP has zero case against all the slander that has been thrown his way. Russia, golden showers, wanting to **** his daughter......all that crazy ****. If the slander rul was equally applied, NONE of that would have ever been said .......period..........PERIOD.

Remember, slander with malice is very hard to prove.

Later,

Geo

[Moveon]

If you slander someone, it is slander.....The bar is that you had to do it with malice intent.

I'm sorry, just because someone is in the public eye does NOT mean you can say whatever the crap you want. the NYT took a campaign poster from the palin team, painted targets on PEOPLE, and then said it came from teh palin campaign.

If that is NOT malicious intent, I'm not too sure what the eff it is.

Just take the sandman case.........Nick Sandman won his slander cases, because he's not in the public eye. I think the standard for libel should be equally met........public or private citizen.

Now, I understand that deep pockets could say whatever they wanted, and prob get away with it, because well.....deep pockets, but you know what. Maybe not. Deep pockets had to pay Sandman a **** ton of money.

Now, IMAGINE my public versus private slander standard. As it is, TRUMP has zero case against all the slander that has been thrown his way. Russia, golden showers, wanting to **** his daughter......all that crazy ****. If the slander rul was equally applied, NONE of that would have ever been said .......period..........PERIOD.

Remember, slander with malice is very hard to prove.

Later,

Geo

The NYT printed an apology and Palin's lawyers should have known that they didn't have a case and told Palin to sit down and shut up. But she continues to make a fool of herself.