In a real-life libel case, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin is attempting to sue the New York Times over an editorial that was published in June 2017. The article written by James Bennet makes a connection between a political advertisement released by Palin’s political action committee where they depict several political opponents in stylized crosshairs, and an Arizona shooting in 2011.The advertisements came before a mass shooting in Arizona that was targeted at the same people that were highlighted in the advertisement. Palin accuses The New York Times of insinuating that this advertisement incited violence and was responsible for the attack. While Palin and her legal team are attempting to sue for libel, I do not believe that this should be seen as a libel case.
I think that this case should not be seen as a libel case because it does not fall in the lines as something that is legally considered libel. The first reason that I think it should not be considered a libel case and why is falls outside of these lines is because in my opinion it does not contain actual malice. For a case to be considered libel it must contain actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth which was determined in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case. I do not think that the New York Times was demonstrating actual malice with their editorial and this is because the Palin team is only accusing them of insinuating that the advertisement incited violence. It would be considered a libel case had the New York Times fully claimed and stated in print that the Palin advertisement was a direct cause of the Arizona mass shooting.
Another reason that I do not believe this should be seen as a libel case is because I do not believe it is defamatory to Sarah Palin specifically. In order for a statement to be libelous, it must be defamatory and nothing was stated that overtly defames Palin. It was stated that the advertisement could have effects of political incitement, and the Times even posted revised versions of the editorial that clearly states that there was no proven connection between the advertisement and the crime that is mentioned. Had the New York Times overtly stated that the attack was a direct result of Sarah Palin and her advertisement and claimed that she is responsible for the attack I would think that this case should be seen as a libel case.
Had there been a clear defamatory statement in the editorial posted by the New York Times and evidence of actual malice trying to hurt Palin’s reputation I would not argue that the case should not be seen as libel. These reasons show that the case falls out of the lines as what should legally be considered libel. Overall, the Sarah Palin v. New York Times libel court case should not be considered as a legal libel case.
Christian's blog 