Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) had her case dismissed by a judge in New York on Monday on the basis that Palin and her legal team had failed to provide evidence that the New York Times acted with malice when it published an allegedly defamatory editorial about her in 2017.
Former federal prosecutor and legal commentator Renato Mariotti explained on his Twitter account that it's extremely difficult for a public figure to prove malicious intent, and the Times was quick to issue a correction to its Palin editorial, which meant that her attorneys had a very high bar to reach.
Mariotti explained that the "high bar is meant to ensure that lawsuits don't limit or silence media companies like the New York Times."
Among the most difficult claims of defamation is one against a public official. In this case, as an editorial or commentary isn't a straight report of facts, legal analyst Harry Litman and Joyce White Vance also remarked.
This legal loss is another in a long line of Palin failures, as she hasn't won anything since her gubernatorial campaign in 2006.
See Mariotti's full assessment below:
It is very difficult for a plaintiff to establish “actual malice” in a defamation case, so it’s not surprising that Sarah Palin failed to do so here.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 14, 2022
This high bar is meant to ensure that lawsuits don’t limit or silence media companies like the New York Times. https://t.co/4LxH7yF1Ra
