As it should be. Yet this is not to say I think the law is perfect. Perhaps one could change the threshold to proving "malice" to, "They were shown evidence that the libel was false and kept doing it without retraction," or some such. I also think retractions should be required to be as prominent as the libel itself. If it was a false headline for example, the retraction itself should be of similar emphasis.
Whaddya think?
The standard has always included ‘reckless disregard of the truth or falsity’ and the more general principle of ‘due diligence’. Even relaxing ‘actual malice’ won’t help Trump. What he wants is to control his image, and that ain’t happenin’ (in a legal sense).
Yes. I think so. If a byline, should be published by the author. If a talking head, the talking head should deliver the retraction.