> Can you expand on what that means?
Not OP, but the way I understood it was that the court already holds hard evidence confirming the statements to be undoubtedly true.
I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.
Can you expand on what that means?
In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false and is therefore entitled to a hearing?