Past governor of Alaska Sarah Palin lost her defamation case against The , New York Times , on Tuesday for the next day, a high-stakes lawsuit that First Amendment supporters fear could result in the cutting ahead of media privileges.
Less than three days into their deliberations, the jury found the news not answerable for libel. The former Republican vice presidential nominee alleges in her lawsuit that an error in an a , June 2017 , Times , newspaper damaged her status. She lost the case in 2022 when New York’s Court of Appeals , next year , found errors and revived it.
The , Times  was not held liable for libel while jury were deliberating in 2022, according to Manhattan Federal Judge Jed Rakoff, who presided over both trials. The problem amounted to terrible editorializing but no libel. In the end, jurors reached the same conclusion but were notified of Rakoff’s decision through push-a-notes in the judge chamber, which was a reason the case was rescheduled for a second trial.
Rakoff joked on Tuesday that he wouldn’t comment on the following court’s decision.
After a gunman opened fire at a parliamentary baseball game, the newspaper,” America’s Lethal Politics,” claimed heated political speech could lead to gun violence in the country and the United States.
Before former Arizona representative Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot and paralyzed in a parking lot of a supermarket, past editor and editor James Bennet contributed the information to Elizabeth Williamson’s content about a modern creative released by Palin’s political action committee in 2011. When the image depicted sights over their political districts, he incorrectly claimed that the image was one of stylized crosshairs over Giffords and other Democratic leaders.
The , Times, and ’s Felicia Ellsworth’s lawyer, Felicia Ellsworth, requested on Tuesday that the judge accept Palin’s claims as” just another opportunity to take on the false information.” The problem, according to Palin’s attorney, Ken Turkel, was not an “honest blunder about a passing reference,” but rather” a life changer” for the politician. He claimed that the news, which is” the world’s most authoritative announcement business,” had a greater role than other media outlets.
He said,” You cannot pick a worse organization if someone is lying about you.” He continued, noting that Palin was only” trying to live her life” and earning money from speaking engagements while she was no campaigning for office or otherwise in the limelight.
Ellsworth noted that Palin, who was running for vice president with Sen. John McCain in 2008, had never requested any damages to cover the alleged missing income from the engagements or anything else.
She doesn’t want those problems because she doesn’t include them, the attorney said. She hasn’t hired people to correct the alleged negative effects to her popularity. She didn’t name a single person who told her they believed she was to blame for the 2017 editorial’s filming in Arizona. She did not name a single person who has, in spite of the newspaper, thought less of her. She denied to provide any testimony to support her claim.
Within 14 time, the problem was fixed,  . No connection between political rhetoric and the Giffords shooting was ever made, according to a correction, and it was also noted that” the editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting.” It featured stylized crosshairs beneath stylized crosshairs, no individual Democratic lawmakers.
Turkel claimed that Palin’s inclusion in the modification was a part of the reason she filed the lawsuit, saying doing so would have earned her” common appreciation.”
He said,” She really doesn’t matter to them.”
In his , Silicon Valley-funded slander lawsuit against Gawker Media , which led to the closure of the common talk site before it relaunched years afterwards, Turkel, who represented , Terry Bollea, known as Hulk Hogan, admitted that Bennet may not have known the depth was false. He claimed that the editor should have had access to the relevant information “at his disposal.”
Ellsworth claimed that Palin’s attorneys had failed to demonstrate that Bennet had “actual malice,” meaning he already knew the specific was false but nonetheless included it. Fact-checkers and editors had interpreted it differently and had responded quickly when they realized the error.
” These are not the results of someone who purposefully avoided the truth,” the statement goes.
First Amendment advocates worry that the lawsuit was brought as a means of overturning a landmark 1964 decision in a case involving The Times, which set a high standard for public officials who attempt to sue journalists for unintentional errors.
It comes as the Trump administration has aggressively stepped up attacks on the media, filing massive lawsuits against outlets Trump didn’t like, seeking to restrict access to outlets like The Associated Press, and expanding access to nontraditional, right-wing media outlets, and support bloggers who support him.
___
© 2025 New York Daily News.
Tribune Content Agency, LLC distributed.
