Great link, thank you! That's precisely what I was looking for (and I highly recommend it to anyone else reading this thread). It does seem strange to me that we set the bar so high for defamation, but its one of those times where the trade-off is very clear, and it seems like in this particular case "reckless disregard for the truth" seems to fit extremely well.

> It does seem strange to me that we set the bar so high for defamation

Well, it's not that strange, if you look at how frequently mere threats of defamation lawsuits are used to chill free speech.

Indeed. The solution, though, is simple: every man woman and child in the USA should just get a law degree!

Every man, woman, person, camera, TV!

After 2020, any states left without a strong anti-SLAPP statute should make it a priority to pass one.

This is a situation where I think the law sort of fails us, alas. The spirit behind the idea of "public figure" in defamation suits is that these things should not be allowed to become tools used by the powerful to protect themselves from the weak. Being public means you are expected to tolerate criticism that would be tortious when aimed at normal citizens.

But the defamer in this case is the President of the United States and his legal team. That sort of falls down.

That is a very powerful argument I am sure Dominion will make.

> The spirit behind the idea of "public figure" in defamation suits is that these things should not be allowed to become tools used by the powerful to protect themselves from the weak.

No, it's that enforcement of laws against defamation, as an act of government, should not intrude upon freedom of speech more than is essential to serve a compelling government interest, and that legitimate government interest is at its nadir when the issue involves restricting criticism on interests of public importance, which includes public figures (whether general public figures or limited purpose ones within the scope in which they are such figures.)