A federal appeals court will let Sarah Palin sue The New York Times over an editorial that suggested a graphic put out by her PAC incited the 2011 Tucson mass shooting targeting then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
In a new ruling, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said there was enough evidence to show a Times editorial writer knew there was no link between the graphic, which put targets over several congressional districts — including that of Giffords — and shooter Jared Loughner subsequently killing six and seriously wounding 13 others, including Giffords, in the parking lot of a Tucson-area Safeway on Jan. 8, 2011.
The decision does not mean the Times is guilty of libel. But it gives Palin, who was the 2008 vice presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain, a chance to argue her case to a jury.
The map circulated by SarahPAC superimposed the image of a crosshairs target over certain Democratic congressional districts, including Giffords’ Southern Arizona district. Judge John Walker, writing for the unanimous panel, said the graphic evoked images of violence in the views of many.
Six years later, there was another political shooting, at a Washington, D.C. practice for a congressional baseball game, injuring four people including Republican Congressman Steve Scalise.
An editorial published the same evening titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” written by James Bennet, the paper’s editorial page editor, argued the two shootings evidenced the “vicious” nature of American politics.
It claimed the “link to political incitement was clear,” mentioning the Palin PAC’s map of targeted electoral districts.
Walker said the editorial suggested — incorrectly — that the members of Congress themselves had been pictured on the map.
The editorial also said there was “no sign of incitement (in the 2017 shooting) as direct as in the Giffords attack.”
Palin filed suit 12 days after the editorial was published.
A trial judge, after a hearing where Bennet was questioned, threw out the case. The appellate court not only found that procedure improper but said there was enough evidence to let the case go to a jury.
