Liable Libel

   The standard defense against a libel suit is that the information is true, provably true, and printed without malice. Even if something is not true, a newspaper can show it was written by mistake and done without malice, so it is therefore not libelous.

   This issue came up as Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for linking her comments with a shooting in Arizona that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

   The problem was that there was no connection between the more recent shooting and the other incident that happened six years earlier. The Times quickly withdrew the opinion piece and printed a correction.

   This, however, did not satisfy Palin, so she sued.

   Will she win? Here are a few things to consider. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that a such a libel suit must show malice or a "reckless disregard" for the truth. And in the 18th Century, the governor of New York sued a newspaper for printing a story about the governor and his mistress, alleging a "false libel." The defense attorney at the time said the story was true, the governor did indeed have a mistress and many people knew about it, so therefore the story was not libelous.

   And in 1964, the Supreme Court said a libel suit must show malice in printing a story, along with a "reckless disregard" for whether it was true. The incident concerned an ad in the New York Times by a Southern civil rights group criticizing an opponent as being racist.

   The opponent sued the Times, including the editorial department, for libel. Observers suggest he sued the newspaper partly because the group that took out the ad did not have much money, but the NYT did. The defense maintained also that the editorial department had nothing to do with the advertising department, so therefore it was not liable. As for whether the allegations against the Southern anti-civil rights opponent were true, that issue was not dealt with directly, since the news department was not involved in determining its truth or falsehood or anything in the ad.

   As for the current dispute between Palin and the NYT, the newspaper acknowledged the alleged connection was erroneous, and quickly spiked the relevant paragraph and ran a correction, indicating there was no malicious intent.

   That apparently did not satisfy the former candidate, and her lawsuit is now winding its way through the court system.

   The problem with that, as lawyers point out, is that this gives the story new life, and rather than be quickly forgotten by the general public, continuing encounters are covered by the media, reminding the public of the incident of years before.

   Moral: Unless it's really serious, let it go and the public will soon forget it. Otherwise, you give the news media reason to continue running the story.

   Post script: The jury unanimously rejected Palin's claim.