• Sarah Palin v. New York Times v. and the First Amendment

    February 19, 2022

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in: Democracy

    What is Sarah Palin up to suing the New York Times for libel? Is she really trying to change the First Amendment and does she know what she is doing?

    Palin v. The New York Times Company is now before a district court in New York, and no matter the verdict is also certainly headed for the Supreme Court. It seeks to overturn precedent from 1964 that gave America some of the world’s strictest libel laws, laws which depending on which way the wind is blowing (i.e., if the media is red or blue and if the offended politician is red or blue) either allow for fake news and misinformation, or protect the 1A rights of a free press. So oh yes, the Palin case is political.

    The story began on June 14, 2017, when a left-wing activist shot at Republican politicians playing baseball on a field in Virginia (wounding, among others, Louisiana’s Steve Scalise). The NYT wrote “Was this attack 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.”

    The Times quickly issued multiple “corrections,” pointing out it had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by [Palin’s] political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.”

    Palin filed a libel suit, quickly dismissed, stating the Times defamed her in claiming her PAC’s advertising somehow incited people to violence, and the Times darn well knew it was not true. After five years of wrangling, Palin got the case reinstated and it is now ongoing in New York.

    Under current law, four standards have to be met to succeed. Palin has to show 1) what the Times wrote was false. Not in contention, they knew it and issued corrections; 2) the article specifically referred to Palin; yep.  3) That what the Times wrote was defamatory, which caused Palin harm and 4) the Times knew what it published was false or that in publishing them it showed a reckless disregard for the truth. Number 4 refers to the standard of “actual malice.”


    The standard for libel cases between the media and public figures goes back to 1964’s Sullivan v. The New York Times Company, when the Court held the First Amendment protects media even when they publish false statements, as long as they did not act with “actual malice.” What happened was civil rights leaders had run a full-page fund raising ad in the Times, describing in detail what they called “an unprecedented wave of terror” of police actions against peaceful demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. Not all the bad things they accused the cops of doing were true, and made the police look worse then they were. So L.B. Sullivan, in charge of the police response in Montgomery, sued the New York Times for libel, claiming they printed something they knew was false and harm his reputation. In an Alabama court, Sullivan won and the New York Times was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages.

    The Times appealed to the Supreme Court and won. In greater context, Sullivan freed northern journalists to aggressively cover racial issues in the south, shielded from the threat of libel suits. It represented a significant broadening of the 1A.

    The Times argued broadly if a newspaper had to check the accuracy of every criticism of every public official, a free press would be severely limited, and that the 1A required the margin of error to fall on the side of the media in the cases of public officials (things work differently if both parties are private citizens.) The Court responded by creating a new standard for libel of a public figure, “actual malice” defined in short as having the knowledge that something was false or published with “reckless disregard” for truth. Justice William Brennan asserted America’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, factual errors that might damage officials’ reputations.

    The standards laid out in Sullivan are why the New York Times has not lost a libel case in America ever since.

    In the Palin case, to avoid disturbing the precedent, the Times is arguing their article did no harm to Sarah Palin. She continues to bop around the national political arena doing whatever it is she does. Palin’s side is leaning on the precedent directly, arguing the Times had no evidence whatsoever that her PAC had incited anyone, never mind the instant shooting case, and that the Times employee who wrote the original article thus exhibited “reckless disregard” for the truth and claimed “the reason he didn’t check these facts is simple. He didn’t care.” The case is in early days, but everyone already can map out what the arguments are going to have to be, based on the criteria in Sullivan.


    A lot of journalistic slush has flowed downhill since Sullivan in 1964, and attitudes toward trusting the media have changed. The media of 1964 set themselves the goal of objectivity, or at least the appearance thereof. In 2022 places like the NYT wear their partisanship as a badge of honor, and they overtly mock and hate people like Sarah “Caribou Barbie” Palin. They spend years wallowing in stories of far-reaching importance with reckless disregard for the truth, whether that be fake WMDs in Iraq to kick off a war, or Russiagate to try to bring down a president. The glory days of the Pentagon Papers, or the meticulous reporting on Watergate, are long, long gone.

    The Supreme Court which wrote Sullivan is also long gone. Completely separate from Palin’s lawsuit, last year Justice Neil Gorsuch added his voice to an earlier statement by Justice Clarence Thomas and questioned the standards set in Sullivan. Thomas, in a libel case dissent, specifically scolded the media over conspiracy theories and disinformation. He cited news reports on “the shooting at a pizza shop rumored to be the home of a Satanic child sex abuse ring involving ” and a NYT article involving “online posts falsely labeling someone a thief, a fraudster and a pedophile.” Thomas wrote that “instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits, we should give them only the protection the First Amendment requires.”

    Siding with Thomas, Justice Gorsuch reminded in his own recent dissent in 1964 media was dominated by a handful of large operations who routinely “employed legions of investigative reporters, editors, and fact checkers… Network news has since lost most of its viewers. With their fall has come the rise of 24-hour cable news and online media platforms that monetize anything that garners clicks.” Gorsuch is clear this requires a reassessment of Sullivan, and for the first time in a long time has a conservative majority court seated around him perhaps ready to do so. This all in the face of likely presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose criticism of libel laws, focused on Bob Woodward’s books about his presidency, is well-known.

    Sarah Palin’s case against the New York Times comes at this junction in history. It leaves many with a bad taste in their mouths, particularly those who generally support broader First Amendment rights. A ruling which lessens the standards in Sullivan and ultimately leaves Palin the winner (libel laws are technically state-level torts, but the Supreme Court defines the boundaries in line with the Constitution) would have a chilling affect on the media. Maybe not super-media like the Times which has money for lawyers and relishes a good 1A fight, but smaller outlets who could not afford to defend themselves. Everyone remembers the demise of Gawker.

    At the same time, if the Court rules against the Times and allows a new standard which encourages more public figures to sue, it will only be the media’s own fault. Given the freedom under Sullivan to have close calls always fall their way, too many in the MSM purposefully exploited that treasure, using the 1A as a dummy front for sensationalizing garbage and outright partisan propaganda. It is unlikely in a post-Sullivan world Russiagate would have become a three year media event. In that instance, as the truth was exposed and falsehoods revealed about even the minor players, their libel suits would have stopped the whole thing cold. As Justice Gorsuch wrote, the Sullivan standard Palin is contesting has offered an “ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods” by a growing number of media that can disseminate sensational information with little regard for the truth. Maybe its time to change that.


    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Really? Does anyone think anything could kill the reputation of this bimbo?

      Did the Times reporting harm anyone…at least not since the Judy Miller war prop lies?

      Yeah, absence of malice, public figures are FAIR GAME, like people who call out NYT lies that actually kill people.

      02/20/22 8:40 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer-Palin as the next Secretary of State if Trump wins in 2024? We’re in Lewis Carroll land now-don’t forget. She is in fine standing with the MAGA crowd I imagine.

      02/21/22 1:12 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      There seems to me only one way to stop the publication of falsehoods. Careerists in journalism must personally abide by high ethical standards. As long as we believe ethical standards are an occasional affordable cultural luxury and not a necessity we’ll continue the downward arc of a tanking empire.

      02/22/22 9:27 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Yea, they should be like RT.

      02/22/22 5:25 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer- you were convinced that Trump will get his comeuppance via New York prosecutors. Power mad guys seem to come out fine by spotting who can be bought off. America’s rump leader has plenty of miserable compliant followers who seem to want their misery to be even more agitated. Putin evidently meets a similar need in the Russian people.

      02/24/22 8:54 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Trump and Putin are their own worst enemies as their actions resulted in the opposite result; Trump’s actions have lost Republicans the House, Senate and White House. Speaking out in support of the Putin “genius” to invade Ukraine paints the GOP as the anti-Democratic party. Trump screwed the 2024 election if the clown is the GOP candidate. Putin’s stupid actions will increase support for NATO, increase the US bloated military budget, and give the Baltic States more military assistance. Russia will have less influence in world affairs.

      You have to think these guys are both working for the enemy.

      02/25/22 8:52 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Speaking of the moron who can see Russia missiles from her house, the bimbo better speak nice of Putin. According to Putinland law, those convicted of slander in public speech, on the Internet and in the media face a fine of up to one mln rubles ($13,400), a prison term of up to two years or community service of up to 240 hours. The document also tightens penalties for slander involving abuse of one’s official position (a prison term of up to three years) and slanderous allegations about rape and other serious crimes (a prison term of up to five years).

      So Putin, a murderous thug who is raping Ukraine, no doubt in search of loose underage females, is worried about bad things said against him? Okay then. The Russkie ruble is now worth about one cent, so that ruble fine amounts to pocket change.

      02/25/22 11:54 AM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)