Palin v. The New York Times Company

933 F.3d 160 (2nd Cir. 2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Jared Loughner opened fire at a political rally for Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people and injuring thirteen others. Representative Giffords was seriously wounded in the attack. Shortly before the tragic attack, P's political action committee (SarahPAC) had circulated a map that superimposed the image of a crosshairs target over certain Democratic congressional districts (evoking, in the view of many, images of violence). Giffords' district was among those targeted by the SarahPAC crosshairs map. In the wake of the Loughner shooting, some speculated that the shooting was connected to the crosshairs map. No evidence ever emerged to establish that link. The criminal investigation of Loughner indicated that his animosity toward Representative Giffords had arisen before SarahPAC published the map. Six years later another political shooting occurred when James Hodgkinson opened fire in Alexandria, Virginia at a practice for a congressional baseball game. He seriously injured four people, including Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. D, under the Editorial Board's byline, published an editorial entitled 'America's Lethal Politics.' Reflecting on the Loughner shooting and the SarahPAC crosshairs map, the editorial claimed that the 'link to political incitement was clear,' and noted that P's political action committee had 'circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs,' suggesting that the congress members themselves had been pictured on the map. It stated, 'Though there's no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.' The backlash was immediate and within a day, it had changed the editorial and issued a correction. The Times removed the two phrases suggesting a link between P and the Loughner shooting. It retracted the statements as follows: 'An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. No such link was established.' D also clarified that the SarahPAC map had overlaid crosshairs on Democratic congressional districts, not the representatives themselves. P sued D in federal court for defamation. D moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss on whether P had sufficiently pled malice. The author of the editorial, James Bennet, testified. He explained that his reference to P was intended to make a rhetorical point about the present atmosphere of political anger. He answered inquiries about his prior knowledge of the Loughner shooting six years earlier and any connection to P. He testified that he was unaware of any of the earlier articles that indicated that no connection between P or her political action committee and Loughner had ever been established. Bennet responded to questions by P's counsel and the district judge. Neither party objected to the district judge's decision to hold the hearing. D’s motion was granted. P proposed an amended complaint along with a motion for reconsideration and it was denied. P appealed.