Former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the New York Times in 2017, alleging defamation over a published piece she said blamed her for a 2011 shooting in Arizona. The case will be brought to trial in a few weeks, despite the numerous attempts by the New York Times to get it dismissed.

Initially, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan dismissed the case, saying at the time, “Negligence this may be; but defamation of a public figure it plainly is not.”

But last year, a three-panel judge overturned that decision, and the case will now go to court on February 1, 2022.

Last week, Palin asked the federal judge to bar all footage of her two appearances on the popular TV show Masked Singer from the trial. Palin’s attorneys requested the two episodes, “Masked Singer Video – Dancing and Rapping” and “Masked Singer Video – Reveal” be barred.

Palin, published in The New York Post, said she wanted the TV appearance episodes barred from the trial because they would create “unfair prejudice and confusion among the jury.”

In the defamation lawsuit, Palin claims The New York Times blamed her in a published piece for the Tucson supermarket parking lot shooting, during a constituent meeting, that left Rep. Gabby Giffords close to death after being shot in the head at point-blank range. Six other people were murdered in the incident, and eighteen others were shot but survived.

After the mass shooting, numerous gun critics called for restrictions on high-capacity firearms, while others blamed the right-wing media for the shooting. Palin was singled out because of her poster, created by her political action committee, that showed an electoral map with crosshairs on it, in the region Giffords was elected. Palin denied any responsibility for the shootings.

The New York Times Op-Ed at the center of the case is also listed as something Palin wants to be barred in the trial.

In pre-trial disclosures, after seeing the Times’ evidence, Palin’s lawyers requested the judge ban other published pieces that could be used as evidence, such as the numerous articles about Palin and social media postings such as those that listed her 'Palin Instagram Account' and 'Sarahpalin.com -- online store.’

Palin’s attorneys said these items are “objectionable on various grounds, including without limitation: relevancy; unfair prejudice and confusion; improper character evidence; and hearsay.”

Photo Source: Sarah Palin in 'The Masked Singer' (DailyMail) The New York Times Op-Ed piece in question, titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” was written by prior New York Times editor James Bennet. In his piece, Bennet said Palin’s political action committee had circulated a map that placed twenty Democrats, including Giffords, in an area under “stylized crosshairs.”

Two days after the editorial was published, the newspaper published a correction, and Bennet said he was not blaming Palin for the shooting.

Last week, Judge Rakoff denied a Times motion for summary judgment. The case is now ordered to proceed, with Rakoff saying there was “sufficient evidence to allow a rational finder of fact to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”

The New York Times released a statement after the decision to go to trial was announced.

“We’re disappointed in the ruling but are confident we will prevail at trial when a jury hears the facts,” noted Danielle Rhoades Ha, a New York Times spokeswoman.

The twelve-member jury will need to decide if the Op-Ed author acted with “actual malice,” writing what he knew to be false, or with “reckless regard” for the facts. However, the map at the center of the Op-Ed was indeed very real and distributed in Arizona prior to the mass shooting.

In the published editorial before its correction two days later, Bennet wrote, “the link to political incitement was clear” regarding the 2011 Arizona shooting. Bennett also included the information about the actual, distributed map created by Palin’s political action committee, showing the crosshairs over 20 targeted electoral districts including Gifford’s area.

Two days later, in the published New York Times correction, the paper stated the author had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting …. (and) incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting.”

In the US, freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment and applies to newspapers. However, while the First Amendment protects free speech for all, if an untrue statement causes real harm, defamation laws and constitutional protections may be at odds, especially in a lawsuit. Defamation laws specifically protect people whose careers, reputations, finances and/or health have been damaged by untrue, harmful statements.

Palin, who chose to become a public figure, will have a more difficult time proving defamation as compared to a private citizen. The jury, as noted prior, must find the author wrote with actual malice.