-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Sarah Palin tests positive for COVID, delaying trial against 'New York Times'
Sarah Palin's defamation2 lawsuit3 against The New York Times, scheduled to open Monday, was pushed back until at least Feb. 3 after her attorneys informed the presiding judge that she tested positive for COVID-19.
U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff informed those in attendance Monday morning that the Republican former governor and vice4 presidential candidate had tested positive.
"She is, of course, not vaccinated5," Rakoff said. Late last year, Palin said she would be vaccinated against COVID-19 only "over my dead body."
A second test after an hour's recess6 offered another positive result Monday morning, persuading Rakoff to put the trial's start off despite concerns from the newspaper's legal teams that it was one more delay in a case that was filed more than four years ago.
Before doing so, however, Rakoff issued a few rulings that seemed to favor The Times. He disqualified an expert witness Palin's attorneys had proposed to call and said jurors would not hear about the details under which former Times editorial page editor James Bennet was forced to leave. Bennet departed under duress7 in 2020, several years after the editorial that prompted this suit.
As Palin's political career first unfurled on the national scene in 2008, she frequently criticized what she called the "lamestream media," saying it was unfair to her and took pains to cast her in the worst possible light.
Once the trial starts back up, Palin will get her day in court against The Times, one of the most august titles in American journalism8. The case pits First Amendment9 protections for robust10 free speech against the right of someone not to be defamed, that is, the right not to have damaging and untrue claims made publicly against her, even if she's a prominent public figure. It is also likely to shine an unwanted light into the behavior of the nation's leading newspaper when it's under deadline pressure.
"It's going to be ugly," says Lucy Dalglish, a First Amendment attorney who is dean of the University of Maryland Merrill College of Journalism. If you're a news outlet11, Dalglish says, "you really never want a libel case to go to trial. It's hard to win. It can be done, but they're hard to win."
There is no argument or ambiguity12 here about the facts: What the Times originally published was wrong.
The case centers on a June 2017 editorial that wrongly asserted a link between an ad made by Palin's political action committee six years earlier and a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona, in which six people were killed and several others wounded, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
Editorial writer Elizabeth Williamson drafted the piece the day of another mass shooting, this time at a congressional baseball practice outside Washington, D.C. A man who was a supporter of liberal causes seriously wounded U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a top Republican from Louisiana, and injured five others.
Opinion editor added passages to editorial
Williamson's boss, then-Times editorial page editor James Bennet, sought a more sweeping13 editorial, one that argued for greater gun control laws and against the use of heated political rhetoric14 and incitement15, as he explained in a deposition16 later on.
So Bennet added a passage to the editorial saying that "the link to political incitement was clear" between Palin's ads and the shooting in Tucson, Ariz. In fact, an ABC News story that the online version of the Times editorial linked to stated there was no proof that the gunman had seen the material from Palin's political action committee.
Additionally, the editorial mischaracterized the Palin committee's ad. The graphic17 showed crosshairs targeting 20 congressional districts, represented by Democrats18, including Giffords' in Arizona, on a map of the U.S. But it did not place crosshairs over images of the lawmakers themselves, as the Times originally suggested.
The newspaper posted the editorial, titled "America's Lethal19 Politics," the night of the Scalise shooting. Social media erupted. A columnist20 for the Times, Ross Douthat, alerted Bennet to the errors; Bennet texted Williamson, "The right is coming after us over the Giffords comparison. Do we have it right?" Both the writer and the editor took responsibility in a text exchange the next morning. Bennet wrote, "I feel lousy about this one — I just moved too fast. I'm sorry."
The Times revised its stories, posted corrections and tweeted an austere21 apology the next day that did not mention Palin by name. Her attorneys called the tweets "half-hearted." Days later, Palin filed suit.
Despite Times' mistakes, Palin has a high bar to meet
"It's going to be great courtroom theater," says William Grueskin, a former top editor at the The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News who has written about the case for the Columbia Journalism Review. "You're going to have Sarah Palin up there on the stand. You're going to have some of the top people at the Times -- at least of the opinion section. I don't see how that can fail to be interesting."
Palin's attorneys have alleged22 that Bennet had demonstrated a desire to attack Palin — pointing to posts on The Atlantic's site from years earlier, when Bennet was editor, by blogger Andrew Sullivan questioning details about the birth of her youngest child. Grueskin says he did not see anything in the court file to support that claim, noting Bennet's swift public correction and private contrition23.
Yet, Grueskin, now on the faculty24 of Columbia University's journalism school, notes that the idea Palin had inspired the shooter in Arizona had been examined and discounted years earlier — including in the pages of the Times.
To prevail in court, Palin must convince the jury that Bennet and the Times acted with actual malice25 — that is, they knew what they wrote in the editorial was false or that they recklessly disregarded whether the claims were true or not. That standard emerged from a landmark26 1964 Supreme27 Court ruling, also involving The New York Times.
"In our view, this was an honest mistake," David McCraw, the Times' deputy general counsel, told The Washington Post's Erik Wemple in 2019. "It was not an exhibit of actual malice."
Typically, misstatements about a well-known person, especially someone holding senior political office, are given greater protection under the law than those about private individuals. And the trial judge, Jed Rakoff, initially28 dismissed Palin's suit, saying she hadn't adequately alleged a cause of action. She appealed, and the appellate court sent it back to him to review once more. Under the new instructions, the case moved forward.
"Ordinarily, it's very tough to libel a public official or a public figure," Dalglish says. "When you're dealing29 with a libel case that involves something that is supposed to be an opinion piece, things can tend to get messy."
Proving harm vs. sending a message
Attorneys for the Times had sought to bar any discussion in court of the other controversies30 that surrounded Bennet in his four years as editorial page editor.
In his relatively31 brief tenure32, Bennet was slammed by critics on the left and the right for his choice of writers to hire and pieces to publish as he sought to expand the range of voices in the paper's largely liberal pages. Bennet left in June 2020 after acknowledging he had failed to read an op-ed by Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton before publication that sparked an outcry inside the paper's newsroom. Cotton had called on then-President Donald Trump33 to use the military to put down social justice protests that got out of hand. Publisher A.G. Sulzberger noted34 it was one of several controversies under Bennet.
After leaving public office, Palin has stayed in the public eye, on television reality shows as well as serving as a Fox News commentator35. The network hired her twice but parted ways with Palin in 2015 — years before the New York Times editorial was published.
Her attorneys are seeking to preclude36 any talk of her 2020 appearance on the Fox TV show The Masked Singer, which included a segment in which she rapped. (Audience members audibly gasped37 when Palin pulled the head off her colorful furry38 bear costume to reveal her identity.)
The former governor is asking for actual and punitive39 damages. But she may find it tough to prove actual harm or any specific lost revenues due to the editorial. Her lawyers have called on the court to deliver a message to the Times and to journalists that they cannot unfairly malign40 people, even if they are public figures.
It's a message that could find a warm reception in at least one wing of the nation's highest court: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated he wants to toss the 1964 ruling setting a high bar for proving defamation claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch has argued in favor of at minimum revisiting the ruling.
"This case could add more fuel for that fire," Grueskin says.
1 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 defamation | |
n.诽谤;中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 lawsuit | |
n.诉讼,控诉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 vaccinated | |
[医]已接种的,种痘的,接种过疫菌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 recess | |
n.短期休息,壁凹(墙上装架子,柜子等凹处) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 duress | |
n.胁迫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 journalism | |
n.新闻工作,报业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 robust | |
adj.强壮的,强健的,粗野的,需要体力的,浓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 outlet | |
n.出口/路;销路;批发商店;通风口;发泄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 ambiguity | |
n.模棱两可;意义不明确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 sweeping | |
adj.范围广大的,一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 incitement | |
激励; 刺激; 煽动; 激励物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 deposition | |
n.免职,罢官;作证;沉淀;沉淀物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 graphic | |
adj.生动的,形象的,绘画的,文字的,图表的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 lethal | |
adj.致死的;毁灭性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 columnist | |
n.专栏作家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 austere | |
adj.艰苦的;朴素的,朴实无华的;严峻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 contrition | |
n.悔罪,痛悔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 malice | |
n.恶意,怨恨,蓄意;[律]预谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 landmark | |
n.陆标,划时代的事,地界标 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 initially | |
adv.最初,开始 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 controversies | |
争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 tenure | |
n.终身职位;任期;(土地)保有权,保有期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 commentator | |
n.注释者,解说者;实况广播评论员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 preclude | |
vt.阻止,排除,防止;妨碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 gasped | |
v.喘气( gasp的过去式和过去分词 );喘息;倒抽气;很想要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 furry | |
adj.毛皮的;似毛皮的;毛皮制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 punitive | |
adj.惩罚的,刑罚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 malign | |
adj.有害的;恶性的;恶意的;v.诽谤,诬蔑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|