 |
| Sarah Palin |
By NOAH GOLDBERG, NY Daily News, Jan. 11, 2022
 |
| L-R: Host Nick Cannon and Sarah Palin in an episode of the Masked Singer. (Michael Becker/FOX / HANDOUT) |
The former Republican candidate for vice president has asked a judge to keep her shocking March 2020 reveal as a contestant on “The Masked Singer” from jurors who will render a verdict in her defamation trial against The New York Times.
Footage of Palin singing “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot while wearing a blue-and-pink fuzzy bear costume should not be shown to the jury because it would cause “unfair prejudice and confusion,” lawyers for the former Alaska governor argued in a Manhattan Federal Court filing Monday.
“The bear is part of my nickname growing up, and the whole mama bear thing,” Palin explained on the show after taking off her mask.
"Did you guys notice I changed the lyrics? it was all about men’s butts, not women’s!”
“The Masked Singer” footage was one of an assortment of exhibits Palin hopes to keep out of the trial. Other proposed exhibits include the politician’s website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages, as well as a 2008 Wall Street Journal article about how her vice presidential candidacy was exposing “divisions among women.”
The Times has not yet responded to Palin’s request.
Palin sued the newspaper in 2017, claiming that an editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
The Times editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than individual politicians.
The Times ran a correction. The Times and former Opinion editor James Bennet, who resigned in 2020, are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Palin’s trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 24. A lower court judge initially ruled that Bennet’s mistake did not meet the legal standard for defamation of Palin, who is a public figure. That decision was overturned by an appeals court.
Sarah Palin defamation suit against New York Times revived by appeals court on technicality
By DAVE GOLDINER and STEPHEN REX BROWN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
AUG 06, 2019 AT 10:46 AM
Sarah Palin won a legal victory Tuesday with a federal appeals court revival of her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion piece that tied her to the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by Judge Jed Rakoff, who had tossed Palin’s lawsuit on the grounds that an error in a June 2017 Times editorial was not “made maliciously.”
The panel made no judgment on the merits of Palin’s claim that the Times improperly accused her of inciting the shooting that wounded Giffords in a Tucson, Arizona strip mall. Instead, the ruling revolved around an unusual evidentiary hearing in which Rakoff heard testimony from the writer, editor James Bennet. The three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals determined the hearing did not follow proper protocol.
“District courts are not free to bypass rules of procedure that are carefully calibrated to ensure fair process to both sides,” Judge John Walker wrote.
The Appeals Court said Rakoff had let Bennet’s testimony influence a “negative view” of Palin’s allegations. The judge was also too dismissive of Palin’s claims that Bennet had a personal connection to the shooting through his brother, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, the panel wrote. The districts of some of Michael Bennet’s Democratic allies were targeted in Sarah Palin’s map.
“It is plain from the record that the district court found Bennet a credible witness, and that the district court’s crediting his testimony impermissibly anchored the district court’s own negative view of the plausibility of Palin’s allegations,” the appeals panel wrote.
Palin’s suit alleged the editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting. The editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than of individual politicians. The Times ran a correction.
"We are disappointed in the decision and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously,” a Times spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Public figures like Palin generally face a very high legal bar when suing news organizations for defamation. They must prove not only that the material was false but also that the writers or editors acted with “actual malice” against them.
Footage of Palin singing “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot while wearing a blue-and-pink fuzzy bear costume should not be shown to the jury because it would cause “unfair prejudice and confusion,” lawyers for the former Alaska governor argued in a Manhattan Federal Court filing Monday.
“The bear is part of my nickname growing up, and the whole mama bear thing,” Palin explained on the show after taking off her mask.
"Did you guys notice I changed the lyrics? it was all about men’s butts, not women’s!”
“The Masked Singer” footage was one of an assortment of exhibits Palin hopes to keep out of the trial. Other proposed exhibits include the politician’s website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages, as well as a 2008 Wall Street Journal article about how her vice presidential candidacy was exposing “divisions among women.”
The Times has not yet responded to Palin’s request.
Palin sued the newspaper in 2017, claiming that an editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
The Times editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than individual politicians.
The Times ran a correction. The Times and former Opinion editor James Bennet, who resigned in 2020, are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Palin’s trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 24. A lower court judge initially ruled that Bennet’s mistake did not meet the legal standard for defamation of Palin, who is a public figure. That decision was overturned by an appeals court.
Sarah Palin defamation suit against New York Times revived by appeals court on technicality
By DAVE GOLDINER and STEPHEN REX BROWN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
AUG 06, 2019 AT 10:46 AM
Sarah Palin won a legal victory Tuesday with a federal appeals court revival of her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion piece that tied her to the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by Judge Jed Rakoff, who had tossed Palin’s lawsuit on the grounds that an error in a June 2017 Times editorial was not “made maliciously.”
The panel made no judgment on the merits of Palin’s claim that the Times improperly accused her of inciting the shooting that wounded Giffords in a Tucson, Arizona strip mall. Instead, the ruling revolved around an unusual evidentiary hearing in which Rakoff heard testimony from the writer, editor James Bennet. The three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals determined the hearing did not follow proper protocol.
“District courts are not free to bypass rules of procedure that are carefully calibrated to ensure fair process to both sides,” Judge John Walker wrote.
The Appeals Court said Rakoff had let Bennet’s testimony influence a “negative view” of Palin’s allegations. The judge was also too dismissive of Palin’s claims that Bennet had a personal connection to the shooting through his brother, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, the panel wrote. The districts of some of Michael Bennet’s Democratic allies were targeted in Sarah Palin’s map.
“It is plain from the record that the district court found Bennet a credible witness, and that the district court’s crediting his testimony impermissibly anchored the district court’s own negative view of the plausibility of Palin’s allegations,” the appeals panel wrote.
Palin’s suit alleged the editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” defamed her by linking ads from her political action committee to the 2011 shooting. The editorial said the ads put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” But the crosshairs were actually over images of electoral districts rather than of individual politicians. The Times ran a correction.
"We are disappointed in the decision and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously,” a Times spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Public figures like Palin generally face a very high legal bar when suing news organizations for defamation. They must prove not only that the material was false but also that the writers or editors acted with “actual malice” against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments must not use profanity and must not be defamatory. Please respect the rights of people who may have different opinions than you do.