> Harm is required in all defamation.

Harm is required in _most_ defamation. Some claims are considered "defamation per se", in which they are considered automatically harmful.

- Indications that a person was involved in criminal

- Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious

- Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct

- Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...

Per se defamation establishes that harm has occurred whether or not it is specifically proved. I was going to well-actually the same comment you did, and instead bided my time to well-actually the predictable response.

At any rate: per se defamation isn't at play in this case.

Much appreciated. I should have spelled this out more directly in my original comment, but this is what I meant about some kinds of harm being more obvious. Defamation per se exists largely to handle cases where harm occurred but it’s tough to point to a specific instance or assign it an easy dollar figure.