[dragonwriter]

> People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK.

While state rules for private figures differ, the Constitutional limit (as articulated in Gertz v. Welch) prohibits liability without fault, that is, there must be at least negligence even if the statement is factually false, and also prohibits punitive damages without actual malice.

In the UK, defamation is strict liability (there is no fault requirement) in addition to truth being an affirmative defense rather than falsity being an element of the tort.

[baryphonic]

Negligence is a significantly lower standard than actual malice, and presumably a person who has been defamed would be seeking significant actual damages anyway (the sum of lost wages for a SWE following a false SA allegation, for example, would be quite large even in the absence of punitive damages).

That's the only point I was making.