Comments on: New York Times Company v. Sullivan again, in light of the Palin lawsuit https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/ A blog about political change, among other things Sat, 29 Jan 2022 00:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: DNW https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604492 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 00:32:41 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604492

neo on January 28, 2022 at 4:10 pm said:

DNW:

Fixed – I think.

Yes. Thank you.

]]> By: Art Deco https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604455 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:04:41 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604455 AG Sulzberger is the man who promoted Nikole Hannah-Jones and her rubbish. He’s stupid and crooked.

]]> By: Richard Aubrey https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604453 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:01:42 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604453 “we’re stupid, not crooked,” has been a long-time defense. I’d be interested in investigating the clean up to being stupid.
The usual minimal paragraph amongst the tire ads saying they could not confirm certain information and regret the error is so tiny compared to the offense–whatever it may have been–that in itself it demonstrates malice.
So if a paper makes BIG NEWS about congressman’s child molesting (presuming the congresscritter in question is a republican), and, by carrying on convinces a huge number of its readers that the guy really does molest children and then…oops, can’t confirm in a tiny piece maybe one in a thousand actually see….. After all, they have paper and they buy ink by the barrel. Their choice not to go big on the correction is as obvious an indication of malice as can be imagined.

]]> By: neo https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604446 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 21:10:56 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604446 DNW:

Fixed – I think.

]]> By: DNW https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604441 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:50:11 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604441 Well, … Happy you are being intercepted days, again.

Neo, how about closing the block quote on your passage, for me.

Thanks

]]> By: DNW https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604440 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:44:07 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604440

In the Palin case, the Times is claiming ignorance of its own prior stories.Their defense is basically: we were stupid, not malicious.

It isn’t easy to prove in a court of law that they weren’t just stupid.

In this case, a stricter form of liability standard could probably be argued. If not in court, then prospectively. Although Thomas’ view that Sullivan was a dishonest construction of the lawin the first place, might make some say, “just chuck it” regardless.

But to take up my point, this instance is not a matter of a publisher accepting an advertisement, which had proveable and possibly defamatory falsehoods.

Nor, is it a case of a news reporter getting facts accidentally or plausibly jumbled or wrong to the detriment of a public figure’s reputation.

In this instance it appears to be an executive editorial decision by persons who might reasonably be held to a stricter standard for publishing libel on false fact grounds. This, on the basis that their acts if negligent rather than “malicious” in the personally manifested and then directed psychological sense, were still culpable as a result of their executive responsibilities. Or, rather the institution or corporate body the interests of which they represent and control, becomes strictly responsible for categorical and defamatory assertions promoted not as news, but as matters of fact and character estimation.

Someone well versed in current corporate law and liability might have informed views on developments in this strict liability matter with regard to individuals harmed by ostensible corporate negligence in recent decades; and, to what degree if any, Sullivan might be refashioned to include a strict liability provision under certain well specified and limited conditions.

]]> By: TJ https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604428 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 19:51:07 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604428 Paul, Geoffrey Britain, and GWB. Yez, I sad struck by Neo’s inclusion ov Shirer’s reflections on the morally corrosive effects of mass propaganda on political psychology. One starts reading this as allegory. But then concretes flesh out the fact that the anologue is disturbingly exact today.

Despite this horrifying reality, I’m in awe of neo’s prescient digging and topical timeliness. Perhaps this one is worth adding a minor closing paragraph and elevation to the legalinsurrection blog?

]]> By: FOAF https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604427 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 19:44:18 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604427 I know all about “Godwin’s Law” but it is chilling and disturbing to consider how close we are to the situation described by Shirer.

]]> By: neo https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604424 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 19:15:03 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604424 Dwaz; Deckie66:

The trick is to prove they are knowing falsehoods. In the Palin case, the Times is claiming ignorance of its own prior stories.Their defense is basically: we were stupid, not malicious.

It isn’t easy to prove in a court of law that they weren’t just stupid.

]]> By: stan https://thenewneo.com/2022/01/27/new-york-times-company-v-sullivan-again-in-light-of-the-palin-lawsuit/#comment-2604417 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:55:33 +0000 https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=114022#comment-2604417 The use of the term malice as the defamation standard for a public official or public figure has caused a lot of confusion for law students. Forget the dictionary definition. Dictionary has nothing to do with it. It’s a term of art.

In this legal situation, malice is just a word. Might as well use scienter or some other legal term of art. Or make up a nonsense word. How ’bout xamus? Would actually enhance understanding. In order to prevail, plaintiff must establish that defendant had xamus where xamus means actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

]]>