Sarah Palin, the New York Times, and the "oops" defense

In a 2017 filing the Palin legal team cited various precedents in suggesting that such a defense, if successful, would make a mockery of libel law:

If a defendant could avoid liability simply by claiming the equivalent of “oops … that’s not what I meant,” it would “erect a logically impossible test which by its practical application would inevitably result in no defamation case ever qualifying for jury resolution.”

…

Mr. Bennet is arguing that he didn’t mean to write what he clearly wrote. The Times later removed the falsehood, “the link to political incitement was clear” and the falsehood that there had been a picture of Ms. Giffords and other Democrats on the map. The map showed only states and approximate locations of congressional districts. And the Times admitted there was no connection established to political rhetoric.

If Mr. Bennet’s argument is credited, media outfits can publish almost anything and then run corrections while claiming they meant no harm.