NEW YORK A jury has sided with The New York Times in a libel case brought by Sarah Palin. The former vice-presidential candidate alleged that a 2017 editorial published by the newspaper defamed her by incorrectly linking her political action committee's rhetoric to a mass shooting in Arizona.
The editorial, published after a shooting that wounded then-Representative Gabby Giffords, drew a connection between a map circulated by Palin's PAC featuring crosshairs over congressional districts and the violence that occurred. The Times later issued a correction, acknowledging the error.
Palin's legal team argued that the editorial was published with actual malice, meaning that The Times knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The New York Times defended its reporting, stating that the error was unintentional and promptly corrected. They maintained that the editorial did not meet the legal threshold for libel.
The jury deliberated for about two hours before reaching their verdict, concluding that Palin had not proven her case. The outcome underscores the high legal bar for public figures to win libel suits in the United States, requiring proof of actual malice on the part of the publisher.
Sarah Palin Loses Libel Case Against The New York Times
A jury has ruled against Sarah Palin in her libel lawsuit against The New York Times. The former Alaska governor claimed a 2017 editorial falsely linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting. Jurors deliberated for approximately two hours before reaching their verdict. Palin's legal team argued the editorial damaged her reputation, while The Times maintained it was a mistake that was quickly corrected.