Jurors deliberated for only 2 hours Tuesday afternoon before finding that The New York Times did not libel Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial. The editorial linked a 2011 mass shooter who killed six and wounded U.S. Rep Gabby Giffords with Palin's political rhetoric and a map that her political action committee circulated with Democrats, including Giffords, under crosshairs. There was no evidence that the shooter saw the map or otherwise paid any attention to Palin.
A tearful Bennet apologized to Palin from the witness stand when he testified last week, saying he was tormented by the error and worked urgently to correct it after readers complained to the newspaper. A tearful Bennet apologized to Palin from the witness stand when he testified last week, saying he was tormented by the error and worked urgently to correct it after readers complained to the newspaper. In a correction, the Times said the editorial had "incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting" and that it had "incorrectly described" the map.
The trial marked her second failed effort to sue the Times over the editorial—the first was tossed by a judge before the jury could do so, which led to a successful appeal. Given this jury's own haste in tossing the case, one wonders if it even needed to hear counterarguments, let alone Bennet's apologies. The Times was protected by longstanding precedent which requires public figures such as Palin to prove that statements of fact were made that were intentional lies or recklessly indifferent to the truth. The next step for her, perhaps, is to see if the Supreme Court is interested in overturning it.
Previously:
• Supreme Court declines to 'open up our Libel law'
• Far-right fraudster Tommy Robinson loses £100,000 libel case to Syrian schoolboy
• New Hampshire court to patent troll: it's not libel when someone calls you a 'patent troll'
• Bagless billionaire Dyson loses libel lawsuit
