últimas notícias

The judge said that standard, aimed at allowing robust public debate on issues of public importance, is open to question. However, he said it was not his role to revisit that rule.

“The Supreme Court made that balance and set a very high standard, and I don’t think that standard has been realized by plaintiff with respect to at least one aspect of the actual malice requirement,” Rakoff said. “I don’t think a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Bennet either knew the statements were false or that he thought the statements were false and he recklessly disregarded that high probability.”

At the time Palin filed the suit, more than four years ago, her legal team billed it as a vehicle to challenge that “actual malice” standard. The suit was brought as prominent figures on the right, including then-President Donald Trump, were expressing increasing frustration the Times v. Sullivan framework. In recent years, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have called on their fellow justices to revisit that decision. However, in 2020, the New York Legislature adopted that Sullivan standard as the rule under New York state law. Legal experts say that move makes the Palin case an unlikely vehicle for the high court to revisit the half-century-old rule.

Rakoff noted that Palin was not only obligated to show actual malice, but needed to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. “That places the burden very much on the plaintiff in these situations,” he said. “In this case, the court finds that that standard has not been met.”

The editorial, titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” was published on the day a gunman opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., badly wounding Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and three other people. The gunman in that attack, who was killed at the scene, was a fan of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

However, Bennet testified that the Times saw the event as an occasion to urge politicians at both ends of the political spectrum to tone down their rhetoric. He said he introduced language into the editorial that suggested a direct link between a targeting map issued by Palin’s political action committee and the 2011 Arizona shooting. No such link was ever established, but Bennet said he wasn’t trying to imply there was a cause-and-effect relationship, just that there was rhetoric specifically targeting Giffords in advance of that shooting.

The Times issued two corrections to the disputed editorial within hours, but Palin claimed they were inadequate and that the publication damaged her reputation, leading to fewer speaking engagements and requests for political help.

Testimony at the trial exposed sloppy practices at the Times, with Bennet amping up the language in the editorial shortly before deadline, a fact-checker skipping over the language that gave rise to the suit and an editorial writer failing to closely read all of Bennet’s changes when they were sent to her.

Still, the judge said the key question was whether Bennet harbored serious doubt about the truth of his statements at the time they were published. Rakoff said there was no evidence the editor had any concern about the accuracy of the statements until a colleague emailed him after the editorial was posted online.

As he issued his ruling, Rakoff gave the Times a mild tongue-lashing.

“Ms. Palin was subjected to an ultimately unsupported and very serious allegation that Mr. Bennet chose to revisit 7 years or so after the underlying events,” the judge said. “I think this is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times but, having said that, that’s not the issue before this court.”

Rakoff has repeatedly warned the jurors not to look at press coverage of the case, and he seemed convinced Monday that they would not learn of his ruling.

“They, of course, will not know about my decision,” said the judge, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

“I certainly considered the possibility that I should wait until after the jury had rendered its verdict in this case, but the more I thought about it over the weekend, the more I thought that was unfair to both sides. We’ve had very full argument on this; I know where I’m coming out,” Rakoff said just before he announced his ruling.

Before the jurors were excused for the day Monday, Times attorney David Axelrod expressed concern to Rakoff that some of the jurors might see “push notifications” about his decision that were sent out by various news outlets.

The judge then said he planned to “schmooze” with the jurors a bit before telling them to avoid press coverage of the case.

“I didn’t think I should let the day expire, when you know I love this jury, without wishing you a happy Valentine’s Day,” he later told the jury. “If you see anything in the media about this case, just turn away.”

The decision Monday was the second time Rakoff has thrown out the case. He did so in 2017 after an unusual hearing in which Bennet testified about his decision-making related to the editorial. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals later reinstated Palin’s suit, calling Rakoff’s approach unorthodox and in violation of federal rules covering civil litigation.