Back in June, Sarah Palin began her lawsuit against the New York Times for defamation. The paper claimed that she incited a shooting in 2011. “Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” says her lawsuit.
In a recent desperate attempt to insult and discredit Palin’s lawsuit, the New York Times accidentally gave Palin a lot more ammo. The article was called “New York Times Editorial Writer Must Testify in Sarah Palin Lawsuit”. Palin accused the New York Times of knowingly breaking their own rules.
“In his order, Judge Rakoff said one of the questions presented by The Times’s motion to dismiss Ms. Palin’s case was “whether the complaint contains sufficient allegations of actual malice, an essential element of the claim.” Determining that, he added, depended in part on whether the author or authors of the editorial were aware of articles in The Times that contradicted what they wrote,” writes the New York Times.
“For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them,” said Judge Rakoff.
Basically, what they are saying is that it is unfair to make the editorial writer testify because that implies that they actually read the article and are aware of the rules. “The New York Times is claiming the Palin case should be dismissed because it is unreasonable to assume the Editors read the New York Times,” joked one twitter commenter. For more read here.