Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   The Refudiator vs. Lamestream Media goes to trial Monday   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Strange, Supreme Court of the United States, Newspaper, Clarence Thomas, editorial page editor James Bennet, Sarah Palin, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, case pits, libel case  
•       •       •

3159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2022 at 1:50 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



91 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-23 11:16:42 AM  
Splitting hairs I see. Palin is a grifter looking for cash. I see no probability that her reputation could be damaged in any way.
 
2022-01-23 1:19:33 PM  
After the past umpteen years of all the goddamn purposeful lying how this makes a difference.

I'm hoping both parties simply melt into the floor screaming but no noise emerges.
 
2022-01-23 1:53:15 PM  
Oh, go back to your day job as a Sir Mix-a-Lot cover band.
 
2022-01-23 1:53:56 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-23 1:55:15 PM  

edmo: Splitting hairs I see. Palin is a grifter looking for cash. I see no probability that her reputation could be damaged in any way.


Being all like "The New York Post told LIES about me," just at makes me go "'kay... Anyway, Like I was saying: you expect me to believe whales are mammals? Dumbass, why would fish need to breathe? If they're mammals, then where are their nipples, huh? Checkmate atheists!"
 
2022-01-23 1:55:57 PM  
The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.
 
2022-01-23 1:56:35 PM  
2nd amendment solutions Sarah would never incite violence.
 
2022-01-23 1:57:09 PM  
i.ebayimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-23 1:57:36 PM  

RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.


This. The facts of the case are clear: the NYT printed something that was demonstrably false. The quantifiable damages are more clear as Palin's rep was already shiat: $1.
 
2022-01-23 1:59:37 PM  

MattytheMouse: edmo: Splitting hairs I see. Palin is a grifter looking for cash. I see no probability that her reputation could be damaged in any way.

Being all like "The New York Post told LIES about me," just at makes me go "'kay... Anyway, Like I was saying: you expect me to believe whales are mammals? Dumbass, why would fish need to breathe? If they're mammals, then where are their nipples, huh? Checkmate atheists!"


Also, whoopsie, I meant The New York Times.

Also, coconuts are mammals.
 
2022-01-23 2:00:02 PM  

jayphat: RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.

This. The facts of the case are clear: the NYT printed something that was demonstrably false. The quantifiable damages are more clear as Palin's rep was already shiat: $1.


Pretty much lays out that they were 100% wrong in the article but defamation is a high bar.
 
2022-01-23 2:02:52 PM  
I can see New York from my house.
 
2022-01-23 2:03:53 PM  
But it did not place crosshairs over images of the lawmakers themselves, as the Times originally suggested.

Those were surveyors marks! It was about infrastructure!
 
2022-01-23 2:05:38 PM  
But it did not place crosshairs over images of the lawmakers themselves, as the Times originally suggested.

Also... wat?

i.huffpost.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-23 2:06:05 PM  
The sideshow will be worth the price of a ticket.

Which daughter will show up pregnant, sans the goo provider?

Will son Trick Track Toe show up, or is he currently confined?

Will Rich Lowry show up and pop wood every time she winks little starbursts at the jury?

Enquiring minds...
 
2022-01-23 2:08:26 PM  

saturn badger: But it did not place crosshairs over images of the lawmakers themselves, as the Times originally suggested.

Also... wat?

[i.huffpost.com image 442x720]


I'm pretty sure if I made a map like that, I'd be in Federal prison or seated by the Senate GOP as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
 
2022-01-23 2:10:23 PM  
He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-23 2:13:49 PM  

jayphat: RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.

This. The facts of the case are clear: the NYT printed something that was demonstrably false. The quantifiable damages are more clear as Palin's rep was already shiat: $1.


It also requires "actual malice" so unless you have some email or text where the writers were like "Hell, yeah, fark this biatch! She's going down now when we post this wrong information!"...it'll probably just be considered an error and not malice. I think the case won't go in her favor, unless the judge is a Trumpy asshat.

Of course, if it goes up to the Supremes, they'll probably just invent a "oh noes, conservative tears" standard instead of "actual malice..."
 
2022-01-23 2:15:48 PM  

saturn badger: But it did not place crosshairs over images of the lawmakers themselves, as the Times originally suggested.

Also... wat?

[i.huffpost.com image 442x720]


That's what I mean by "splitting hairs."
 
2022-01-23 2:21:19 PM  
Sarah Palin is wasting time. That granny porn ain't gonna make itself.
 
2022-01-23 2:23:26 PM  
O.G Palin, thinks she has a reputation to protect?   That boat sailed over a decade ago?

Besides this issue is just related to what a newspaper thought was possible based on her less than stellar reputation.
 
2022-01-23 2:24:07 PM  
She was targeting legislators who backed the ACA. She is vile.
 
2022-01-23 2:24:14 PM  
Let's call Glenn Rice and see what he has to say about her reputation.
 
2022-01-23 2:26:39 PM  
After leaving public office, Palin has stayed in the public eye, on television reality shows as well as serving as a Fox News commentator.

Her lawyers have called on the court to deliver a message to the Times and to journalists that they cannot unfairly malign people, even if they are public figures.


Well, that's farking rich.
 
2022-01-23 2:27:01 PM  

JTtheCajun: if it goes up to the Supremes, they'll probably just invent a "oh noes, conservative tears" standard instead of "actual malice..."


That may well be the major purpose of the exercise. My impression is that a lot of fascist-adjacent asshats don't like the Sullivan standard.
 
2022-01-23 2:29:52 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-23 2:31:49 PM  
Palin winning this suit would absolutely annihilate Fox News' business model.
 
2022-01-23 2:32:39 PM  

abb3w: JTtheCajun: if it goes up to the Supremes, they'll probably just invent a "oh noes, conservative tears" standard instead of "actual malice..."

That may well be the major purpose of the exercise. My impression is that a lot of fascist-adjacent asshats don't like the Sullivan standard.


If they manage to replace Sullivan with an easier to meet standard, I wonder if they've thought out what will happen to Faux News and all the other fascist or fascist-adjacent "news" outlets in the US.

LOL just kidding of course they haven't... Reich wingers like this actually believe they should be allowed to play by different rules.
 
2022-01-23 2:33:36 PM  

saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]


Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.
 
2022-01-23 2:35:07 PM  

jethroe: saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]

Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.


Right?

She most likely looked far, far, FAR worse after Glenn Rice rocked her world, huh?
 
2022-01-23 2:37:38 PM  

RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.


This case is all about Attorney Fees. A $1 verdict either way would cost the losing party millions of dollars. A $0 verdict will absolutely bankrupt Palin.
That is why she is fighting so very hard to keep the Masked Singer stuff from a jury
 
2022-01-23 2:38:20 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]

Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.

Right?

She most likely looked far, far, FAR worse after Glenn Rice rocked her world, huh?


I don't know who that is nor do I care.  I stopped paying even the minimal amount of attention to Palin years ago.
 
2022-01-23 2:39:04 PM  

JTtheCajun: jayphat: RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.

This. The facts of the case are clear: the NYT printed something that was demonstrably false. The quantifiable damages are more clear as Palin's rep was already shiat: $1.

It also requires "actual malice" so unless you have some email or text where the writers were like "Hell, yeah, fark this biatch! She's going down now when we post this wrong information!"...it'll probably just be considered an error and not malice. I think the case won't go in her favor, unless the judge is a Trumpy asshat.

Of course, if it goes up to the Supremes, they'll probably just invent a "oh noes, conservative tears" standard instead of "actual malice..."


This. And the Times realized their mistake and immediately ran a correction. There was no malice. Also, the bar for a public figure to prove damages is much much higher than a private citizen in cases like this.
 
2022-01-23 2:39:43 PM  

jethroe: Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]

Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.

Right?

She most likely looked far, far, FAR worse after Glenn Rice rocked her world, huh?

I don't know who that is nor do I care.  I stopped paying even the minimal amount of attention to Palin years ago.


That white knight armor still fits like a glove though, huh?
 
2022-01-23 2:42:24 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Palin winning this suit would absolutely annihilate Fox News' business model.


Imagine if Palin wins this suit. That would create a precedent for someone like Hillary Clinton suing Fox News for all their false stories about her. And I bet losing a presidential election is more damage than whatever Palin suffered.
 
2022-01-23 2:47:47 PM  
Are they going to put her on the stand?

Even if she is drunk and on meth?
 
2022-01-23 2:49:08 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]

Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.

Right?

She most likely looked far, far, FAR worse after Glenn Rice rocked her world, huh?

I don't know who that is nor do I care.  I stopped paying even the minimal amount of attention to Palin years ago.

That white knight armor still fits like a glove though, huh?


I'm white-knighting because I don't pay attention to minor celebrities like Sarah Palin?   Sure, buddy.  Username checks out.
 
2022-01-23 2:57:03 PM  

JTtheCajun: jayphat: RyogaM: The NYT was wrong. Palin's reputation cannot be damaged even by saying something completely wrong about her.  Give her a $1 in damages and call it a day.

This. The facts of the case are clear: the NYT printed something that was demonstrably false. The quantifiable damages are more clear as Palin's rep was already shiat: $1.

It also requires "actual malice" so unless you have some email or text where the writers were like "Hell, yeah, fark this biatch! She's going down now when we post this wrong information!"...it'll probably just be considered an error and not malice. I think the case won't go in her favor, unless the judge is a Trumpy asshat.

Of course, if it goes up to the Supremes, they'll probably just invent a "oh noes, conservative tears" standard instead of "actual malice..."


The trial judge already dismissed the lawsuit once. But the court of appeals forced him to reinstate the case. So I sincerely doubt he is a Trumpian moron. And he is a Bill Clinton nominee.
 
2022-01-23 2:57:50 PM  
From FindLaw, someone suing for libel will need to show:

1.Someone made a statement;
2. The statement was published;
3. The statement caused you injury;
4. The statement was false; and
5. The statement did not fall into a privileged category.

About the only thing that can argued is 3. She had (and has) a reputation of being an oaf, but not a reputation of being murderous. Implying someone of soliciting murder is serious so I would not be surprised if the oaf wins.
 
2022-01-23 2:59:41 PM  

edmo: Splitting hairs I see. Palin is a grifter looking for cash. I see no probability that her reputation could be damaged in any way.


There are two parts of this:

1.) Was it malice? (No)
-or-
2.) Was it reckless disregard for the truth? (Possibly)

I believe she is also seeking punitive damages. You are right that it would be difficult to prove reputation damage. (I mean, can anything besmirch "pond scum"). However, the punitive damages would be to send a message that they need to be more careful. In this case it sounds like the editorial board director inserted language at the center of this case into the prose of another opinion writer.

This covers it pretty well. She does, to quote Professor Bill Grueskin, "have a very big mountain to climb".
 
2022-01-23 3:01:18 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: From FindLaw, someone suing for libel will need to show:

1.Someone made a statement;
2. The statement was published;
3. The statement caused you injury;
4. The statement was false; and
5. The statement did not fall into a privileged category.

About the only thing that can argued is 3. She had (and has) a reputation of being an oaf, but not a reputation of being murderous. Implying someone of soliciting murder is serious so I would not be surprised if the oaf wins.


I think it's a defamation lawsuit and the bar for defamation is lower than libel.

Not a lawyer.
 
2022-01-23 3:02:51 PM  

killershark: TofuTheAlmighty: Palin winning this suit would absolutely annihilate Fox News' business model.

Imagine if Palin wins this suit. That would create a precedent for someone like Hillary Clinton suing Fox News for all their false stories about her. And I bet losing a presidential election is more damage than whatever Palin suffered.


I'm okay with that. Make the Clintons the new owners of the Fox News media empire.
 
2022-01-23 3:06:39 PM  
What a trash person.
 
2022-01-23 3:07:48 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: Farkin_Crazy: jethroe: saturn badger: He does rock that rode hard, put away wet look.

[Fark user image image 850x566]

Wicked projection there.  She looks pretty normal.  Certainly not "rode hard and put away wet".  Telling on yourself a bit.

Right?

She most likely looked far, far, FAR worse after Glenn Rice rocked her world, huh?

I don't know who that is nor do I care.  I stopped paying even the minimal amount of attention to Palin years ago.

That white knight armor still fits like a glove though, huh?


Some folks like to defend the worst people.  They already defend folks like Putin and Trump, so Palin shouldn't be a surprise.
 
2022-01-23 3:09:53 PM  
It seems risky for a republican to claim her reputation was damaged because she didn't call for a second-amendment solution to democrats.
 
2022-01-23 3:11:03 PM  
The Tea Baggers got it right the first time.
 
2022-01-23 3:12:38 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Gotta dig pretty far back into old pic folders, but I'm sure Fark is up to it.
 
2022-01-23 3:13:12 PM  
Palin should be brought up more often.  At the time she was presented as an intellectual by her party and folks need to be reminded of that.
 
2022-01-23 3:15:32 PM  

Rattlesnake Rattles Me: Palin should be brought up more often.  At the time she was presented as an intellectual by her party and folks need to be reminded of that.


Lol  yeah, people need to be reminded that Palin is a washed-up one-time minor celebrity.

Brilliant.

You should write it all down on a giant sandwich board and stake out a street corner with your Important News.
 
2022-01-23 3:16:37 PM  
live.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.