The New York Times did not commit defamation when it incorrectly linked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to a 2011 mass shooting, the judge in the case ruled after a weeklong trial, saying he will dismiss the case even as the jury still deliberates—but Palin could still appeal the ruling and ultimately give the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to make it easier for public figures to sue for defamation in the future.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled for the Times under Rule 50, which allows a judge to issue a judgement before a jury rules if they find there’s no “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to rule in a party’s favor.
The judge is still letting the jury deliberate and will formally dismiss the case once they do, saying he wanted an appeals court to have both verdicts when it considers the case, but his ruling is the one that will carry legal weight should the jury rule for Palin.
Palin sued the Times over an op-ed that incorrectly said her political action committee had “incited” the 2011 shooting that wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.)—which was later corrected—arguing the Times published the claim knowing it was false and the article had harmed Palin emotionally and professionally.
Former Times opinion editor James Bennet, who inserted the section on Palin into the piece, testified Wednesday he had not done so maliciously or realized it would be taken to suggest she had incited the shooting, saying he has “regretted [his wording choice] pretty...
PHOTOS: COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE SINGAPORE – Three online retailers have been caught using misleading features to influence shoppers by Singapore’s consumer and competition...