You're not "laying anything out", you have been wrong from start to finish about this.
1. You were wrong about the first amendment providing protection from libel / defamation action.
2. You were wrong about damage not existing or not applying because the person has a certain amount of wealth or holds public office.
3. What you have written above is regurgitating what I already explained to you in other posts. As you can see, it is I who have laid it out for you. That you couldn't bring yourself to reply to my other post that educated you is telling.
Again, if you want to make a useful point or observation about the case, the idiotic internet gotchas and stupid rhetorical questions do not do that. You really can't fathom what possible damages a person whose success relies on public perception and who spends money to improve their public image could possibly suffer by being defamed? Please.
1. You were wrong about the first amendment providing protection from libel / defamation action.
2. You were wrong about damage not existing or not applying because the person has a certain amount of wealth or holds public office.
3. What you have written above is regurgitating what I already explained to you in other posts. As you can see, it is I who have laid it out for you. That you couldn't bring yourself to reply to my other post that educated you is telling.
Again, if you want to make a useful point or observation about the case, the idiotic internet gotchas and stupid rhetorical questions do not do that. You really can't fathom what possible damages a person whose success relies on public perception and who spends money to improve their public image could possibly suffer by being defamed? Please.