Sarah Palin has an Uphill Battle in her Lawsuit Against the NYTimes
The next two weeks will not be very enjoyable for The New York Times.
Monday marks the start of jury selection for a trial over Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. A quick recap: Palin sued the paper in 2017 over an editorial that incorrectly linked the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to a map circulated by Palin's PAC that showed certain electoral districts under crosshairs. The Times corrected the error and apologized for it, and a judge initially dismissed the case. But a federal appeals court revived it and, as a result, a trial will now take place.
The case is, at its heart, about the limits of First Amendment protections and the standard set in the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan case. Specifically, the standard that a public figure must prove an outlet operated with "actual malice" when it published defamatory information. Palin has argued The Times did, and The Times has said it made an honest error.
"At issue is the elasticity of the protections that allow news organizations to present tough coverage of public figures," Washington Post's Erik Wemple wrote on Friday. "Or, to put things a bit more sharply, the case will help demarcate the line between really bad journalism and libelous journalism."
Palin's lawyers aren't commenting ahead of the trial, but The Times is. A spokesperson for the paper told me on Friday that it hopes to "reaffirm a foundational principle of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish unintentional errors by news organizations."
"We published an editorial about an important topic that contained an inaccuracy. We set the record straight with a correction," the spokesperson told me. "We are deeply committe
... keep reading on reddit β‘Introduction
November 2, 1886. For the past week a late autumn fog has blanketed the city. Today, however, the sun has broken out. The Statue of Liberty, unveiled less than a week October 28, breaks out in glittering spectacle over the city.
Nearly 220,000 people would go out to vote, in a city that would soon boast over 1 1/2 million residents in 1890.
The Candidates
Henry George
George led the first Labor Party in the city's history. Famous for his book Progress and Poverty, George advocated for a tax on land and a citizen's dividend, and was the most pro-labor candidate. George was in favor of municipalization, the transfer of entities that he considered "natural" monopolies.
Theodore Roosevelt
The 28 year-old dude had just returned from his ranch in the Badlands, preparing a secret engagement in London to his second wife, Edith Carow, when influential Republicans asked him to accept the Republican nomination. A relative latecomer to the race (by about two weeks), Roosevelt took an odd position besides the pro-labor George and the pro-capital Hewitt. A staunch civil service reformer, Roosevelt had served for 4 years in the state legislature, and was responsible for the legislation greatly empowering the mayor. The future president, a man of extreme energy, Roosevelt spoke to 5 crowds October 29. Responding to a Labor party official one day, he described, "If you had any conception of the true American spirit, you would know that we do not have βclassesβ at all on this side of the water."
Abram Hewitt
Hewitt, the man who eventually won, is the least known today. The son of a furniture maker, Hewitt benefitted from the last minute desertion of Republicans to stop Henry George's victory. The final score settled at 90,000 for Hewitt, 68,000 for George, and just 60,000 for Roosevelt. Hewitt, the "father of the New York city subway," was the most pro-capital, but still reform minded like his opponents, although said that "Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation."
> Hewitt had a troubled term. He alienated Tammany Hall (despite reappointing Richard Croker fire commissioner), for he cracked down on gambling, whoring, and saloons that broke the blue
... keep reading on reddit β‘
| Caption | Darrell Hemphill, Petitioner v. New York |
|---|---|
| Summary | The trial courtβs admissionβover Hemphillβs objectionβof the plea allocution transcript of an unavailable witness violated Hemphillβs Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. |
| Opinion | http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_new_6khn.pdf |
| Certiorari | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2020) |
| Case Link | 20-637 |
I didn't see a thread..
You can Watch MLB Wild Card Game Live Stream Tv for free! Fans can watch their favorite teams with MLB streaming and watch MLB all Game online. We have a MLB streaming website which provides multiple links so you can watch any Game as it is being played.
#Watch: MLB Wild Card Game Live Stream Online For Free
We offer the absolute best Live Streams. Watch from a tablet, smart phone, Mac, or PC. The Live Stream allows you access to multiple channels like ESPN, MLBTv, CBS Sports, FOX Sports, TNT, NBC Sports, and a number of other local television stations.
Please use this thread to discuss today's match.
Today's match will be broadcast on main ESPN
Can someone explain what this case is about and does anyone have any ideas on what the outcome will be??
