Sarah Palin is subject to court: Laws against New York Times failed!

Sarah Palin is subject to court: Laws against New York Times failed!

New York, USA - Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, has suffered a legal defeat: A jury in New York decided that the “New York Times” did not disparage her in a controversial editorial. The decision was made after less than two hours of advice, and thus Palin's defamation against the newspaper was rejected. She had asked for damages because she felt damaged by reporting in her reputation and career.

The dispute revolves around an article from 2017 that dealt with the shots on Republican Congress Member Steve Scalisene. In this article it was said that a political action committee of Palin had spread a map that showed Giffords and other Democrats in the crosshairs. This claim later turned out to be wrong; The “New York Times” corrected the mistake and made it clear that the connection between Palin's political rhetoric and the 2011 shots was not correct.

an honest mistake?

Palin stated that the incident had prepared her mental agony and harmed her public image. James Bennet, the responsible editor of the “New York Times”, explained that the mistake was unintentionally and he asked for forgiveness. The lawyer of the newspaper, Felicia Ellsworth, described the incident as a "honest mistake" that was quickly corrected. This lawsuit was not the first for Palin; Previously, an appellant had decided that procedural deficiencies led to a new procedure in an earlier process.

In the further context, it should be noted that the Supreme US Court of Justice decided on March 24, 2025 to confirm the protection of the media from defamation for prominent personalities. The application for reviewing the historical judgment "New York Times v. Sullivan" from 1964 was rejected. This shows how strongly the legal protection for media is anchored in the USA. The plaintiffs must prove that media knowingly and with "actual malice" have spread untruths.

political dimensions

The decision of the Supreme Court is particularly relevant in times when prominent personalities, such as former President Donald Trump, require reforms of the defamation law. Trump has submitted complaints against the media several times and received significant sums from organizations such as Meta and ABC to enclose such cases. He is currently calling for $ 20 billion from CBS for an edited interview with Kamala Harris and also complaining to local newspapers such as the "des Moines Register" for supposed defamation during the election campaign.

Developments around Sarah Palin and the “New York Times” illustrate the complexity and challenges in the area of ​​tension between freedom of the press and the rights of individuals that could be damaged by media reporting in their reputation. At a time when public figures are increasingly trying to maintain their rights, this case raises questions about the limits of freedom of the press and dealing with public statements.