A company preparing a 20 point action plan on how to discredit someone doesn't seem normal or legal (if implemented) to me.

> I mean, she's arguably a public figure, so a libel case wouldn't stand.

No, it would just require evidence of actual malice: that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures. I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns. Lies and malice (i.e., prevent their election) are common.

> Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures.

“Actual malice” is a much higher bar than is generally in place for libel, but it is not an insurmountable bar.

> I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns.

Litigation over political campaign statements for defamation is fruitless for reasons aside from the legal standard to win a judgement; it takes to long to get a final verdict, but more importantly the litigation itself keeps whatever damaging claim you are trying to suppress at the center of the news, doing your opponents work for them.

Thanks.

So she (and others, similarly targeted) might at least get ~decent settlements.

I guess that I was thinking about this in the context of SLAPP suits and assassinations (e.g., Karen Silkwood).