Exactly.
Nope,
not exactly.
The case is hardly something that'd reward huge punitive damages even if it went to court (which I seriously doubt it ever will). In that sense, it's nothing to get all worked up about.
However, LC is wrong about actual malice.
As a rule, that only applies to public figures. See
NYT v. Sullivan and
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for clarification. When the plaintiff is a private person, he/she usually only needs to demonstrate the defendant's
negligence -- for example, using untrustworthy sources or misreading pertinent documents. (Besideswhich, demonstrating malice isn't all that impossible. Knowledge of falsity's only
one way to do that. Reckless disregard for truth is another.)
The Musclemissions webmaster wouldn't usually be considered a public figure. Even trying to categorize him as a limited-purpose public fig could prove very difficult.
How negligence is defined depends on the jurisdiction in which the suit's heard. (That's a whole other can of worms. Since the alleged defamation was "published" all over the USA on Getbig ... .)
But the rest is pretty straight-forward. MM is clearly identified, so it's "of and concerning" the plaintiff. Publication -- definite check. Defamatory? Yep. No question of that; Tru's statement is libel
per se -- that is, "on its face," and he could never demonstrate that his statements are about a serious public concern. Falsity? I have no clue. MM seems like a nutty person to me, but then, I wouldn't go shooting my mouth off about him hiring a hitman unless I had iron-clad proof
