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:
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:
— 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.
SOMEBODY has to read it.
— PegLeg??✈️✈️ (@PegLegPilot) August 10, 2017
Also, the Times’ argument for dismissal of the case doesn’t appear to be going well:
In Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against @nytimes, judge has just ordered that writer of editorial appear & testify under oath. Story TK
— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) August 10, 2017
Editor’s note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the details of this story.