"... the Supreme Court held that a defamation plaintiff who is a public official – in addition to establishing that challenged statements are false – must prove, with ‘convincing clarity,’ that the defendant published the statements with ‘actual malice,’ meaning awareness that the statements were false or reckless disregard for whether the statements were false."
The passage explaining the five legal tests for whether or not published words are defamatory is eye-opening.
They also discuss the similarities and differences between Libel and Slander, and not all States make a distinction.
In fact, this remarkable article covers almost everything a writer ought to know about defamation, and buried in the middle of a very long and useful work, is the most vital information:
Find it all here:"What key defences are available to a claim in defamation?
- Substantial truth. In most states, it is a complete defence to prove that a statement is ‘substantially true,’ regardless of the defendant’s degree of fault. ‘Substantial truth’ does not require exact accuracy, so long as the ‘gist’ of the statement is true.
- Opinion. In most states, it is a complete defence to establish that a statement expresses an opinion rather than asserting a fact. States may distinguish between ‘pure’ opinion and ‘mixed’ opinion, with only ‘pure’ opinion statements protected. Courts typically find that statements containing loose, figurative or hyperbolic language are non-actionable pure opinion, so long as speakers disclose all facts on which they rely and do not imply the existence of other, undisclosed facts.
- Consent. In most states, it is a complete defence to prove that the plaintiff consented to the publication."