'Amazing'! NY Times' presents mock-tastic argument for dismissal of Sarah Palin's lawsuit

Doug P. | 6:05 PM on August 10, 2017

As we’ve reported previously, Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times following a now “corrected” editorial in which the editorial board tied Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The paper published similar claims previously, but the Times’ is reportedly facing this laughable challenge:

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895747729544163328

Wait, come again…

Lets see if I've got this straight

It is unreasonable to think that the editors of the New York Times read the New York Times? https://t.co/MtHrQqCiny

— David Burton, Fantasy Author and Gamemaker (@HalfTangible) August 10, 2017

Apparently that’s something that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to happen:

New filing in @SarahPalinUSA v. @NYTimes: ~Util – Set Hearingshttps://t.co/V8pd8MkT4Z pic.twitter.com/olDNEgtJLx

— Big Cases Bot (@big_cases) August 10, 2017

Here’s what that section of the judge’s ruling says:

For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them.

So the NYT now has prove to the court that their editors don’t always read the NYT? Classic.