Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sarah Palin, as usual, seems to be barking up the wrong tree. As her lawsuit against the New York Times is progressing, she is said to have difficulty attributing any harm to her due to the NYT, since clearly her political star was already fading. But what's particularly ironic is that the fuss is over a story that Republicans would really have liked: It was a piece maintaining that the left could be just as violent as the right. If she wins, it will certainly open up Fox to a flood of lawsuits. And the judge ruled against punitive damages, so she's unlikely to get rich from this.
Here's a write-up of Palin's testimony on the stand.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,541 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida
Sarah Palin, as usual, seems to be barking up the wrong tree. As her lawsuit against the New York Times is progressing, she is said to have difficulty attributing any harm to her due to the NYT, since clearly her political star was already fading.
It is extremely hard to win a defamation suit, and proving harm is just one part of it.
Quote:
Defamation lawsuits are very hard to win. Only about 13% are successful. It is thus hard to find lawyers who will take the case.
The current standard for defamation cases involving public figures and members of the media comes to us from the Supreme Court’s famous 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. There the court held that public figures who bring defamation cases must show that the defendants, here The New York Times, published false statements of fact about them, that the false statements harmed their reputations and that the statements were made with actual malice. The actual malice standard requires that a plaintiff show that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard about its falsity. We can compare the actual malice standard to a negligence standard, which would ask only whether the reporter or the editor should have known about the falsity of the statement.
But what's particularly ironic is that the fuss is over a story that Republicans would really have liked: It was a piece maintaining that the left could be just as violent as the right.
*shrug* We already know the left is worse.
Quote:
If she wins, it will certainly open up Fox to a flood of lawsuits.
"Open up a flood of lawsuits"? What, you think this is the first defamation suit ever or something?
Quote:
And the judge ruled against punitive damages, so she's unlikely to get rich from this.
"Get rich from this"?
Is that why you think people file defamation suits, to get rich from winning it? Imo, most thinking people believe those suits are about clearing someone's name rather than getting rich.
Quote:
...U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled Thursday as a result that the jury can’t order the Times to pay Palin punitive damages on top of the other damages Palin’s requesting. Rakoff said there wasn’t enough evidence to show that Bennet’s claims were primarily intended to harm Palin, as would be necessary to show in order for the damages claim to succeed. “The evidence frankly that Mr. Bennet harbored ill will towards Ms. Palin is quite modest indeed,” Rakoff said.
Sarah Palin takes center stage... at the Low IQ Circus of the Absurd.
Like a pig wallowing in its own filth, leftists love the spin. Any fool who thinks he/she has it all figured out and questions another person's IQ after voting for the miscreant in the White House and supporting the filthy, miserable administration that defecates all over American citizens in highly dysfunctional ways - now that's absurd.
Sarah Palin takes center stage... at the Low IQ Circus of the Absurd.
But you Dems picked Biden instead, it's hard to take Dems serious about Low IQ. Biden is showing everyday that you don't need brains to be in power since 1973. Right now, Biden makes Palin look good.
But you Dems picked Biden instead, it's hard to take Dems serious about Low IQ. Biden is showing everyday that you don't need brains to be in power since 1973. Right now, Biden makes Palin look good.
And having your political base in a state like Delaware (re the size) probably fueled that as well.
It appears that we have a newspaper and a reporter who are not contrite, and a woman who wasn't injured enough to explain her injuries adequately to the jury.
Hmmm.....
Sounds like a draw to me.
It isn't over yet though, so the situation could change. I doubt it will, however.
Like a pig wallowing in its own filth, leftists love the spin. Any fool who thinks he/she has it all figured out and questions another person's IQ after voting for the miscreant in the White House and supporting the filthy, miserable administration that defecates all over American citizens in highly dysfunctional ways - now that's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
But you Dems picked Biden instead, it's hard to take Dems serious about Low IQ. Biden is showing everyday that you don't need brains to be in power since 1973. Right now, Biden makes Palin look good.
Bingo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
