All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Judge hands media a license to lie

Libel law is dead in America.

You can falsely claim with impunity that a woman incited a mass murder.

From Editor and Publisher:
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin against the New York Times, saying Ms. Palin’s complaint failed to show that a mistake in an editorial was made maliciously.
“What we have here is an editorial, written and rewritten rapidly in order to voice an opinion on an immediate event of importance, in which are included a few factual inaccuracies somewhat pertaining to Mrs. Palin that are very rapidly corrected,” Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan said in his ruling.
Fake News pays. Disgusting.


  1. Guess she'll just have to horse-whip the editor.

  2. Today, Hack Clinton Judge Rakoff ruled libel laws don't protect Republicans from his pals at the Times. Yesterday, Hack Clinton Judge Bolton conspired to deny Joe Arpaio a jury trial because she knew he would win.

    We see big city police departments allowing hooded Antifa thugs to riot and assault with impunity.

    We see the Clintons, who seem to have their own personal US Code.

    We see the Minnesota governor claiming the right to defund and close the legislature, like Maduro in Venezuela.

    We see illegal aliens getting off lightly or even having charges dismissed because it might get them deported while Americans are charged.

    We see the FBI refusing to release Clinton emails, saying nobody is interested. The Director's family received $1.6 million from Clinton cut-outs.

    We see Obama target the Tea Party with the IRS and target the Trumps with the entire government.

    Now we even see internet companies like Google, YouTube and PayPal targeting and censoring conservatives. Would you put up with a Republican phone company that censored you, Democrats? No, you wouldn't--and we're not either.

    This can't and won't go on.

    We're not going to have two systems. That's called "Jim Crow".

    We're either going to have one law for everybody...

    ...or none at all.

  3. I guess I saw this outcome as preordained that Palin wouldn't win. But I think it made the NYT sweat and brought the scorn and scrutiny of other papers (Notably the WSJ)that the NYT's court case could have been easily avoided with a real apology and a clean up of their act.

  4. Trump wanted tort reform. This will be useful later.

  5. It was a foregone conclusion that this case was gonna end up in appellate court, maybe even SCOTUS.

  6. Not surprising. The fix was in from the start.

  7. This is why The Donald wants to fill all those vacancies on the Federal bench.

    Stack the deck in our favor, for a change.

  8. "Justice" is no longer blind. But it has become stupid.

    Things like this validate Trump's Deplorables.

  9. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd, it's HOW we get more Trump!

  10. The Democrat judge may have said big media can lie, but he didn't say we have to pay money for their drivel.

  11. the judge was doing the jury's decision. He should know better. It's my understanding that a trial by jury is our basic right. And so it goes...