Kash Patel's Atlantic lawsuit is not designed to win -- it's meant to intimidate
Kash Patels $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic is, to put it mildly, a long shot. The article painted a portrait of an FBI director who engaged in excessive drinking and relatively minimal work. Patels suit says it aims to hold the publication accountable for a sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece, alleging the journalists crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patels reputation. The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting, calling the suit meritless.
Patels only chance to win on this claim is to prove the alleged defamatory statements were false, that they harmed his reputation and, because Patel is a public figure, that they were made with actual malice. Proving actual malice requires evidence that Atlantic journalists knew they published false statements about Patel or acted in reckless disregard of whether the statements were true or false. This is a high standard requiring much more than negligence, which demands only that the outlets editors and reporters should have known that certain statements were false.
Why do we demand that public figures prove actual malice while private figures only need to show negligence? Three words: the First Amendment.
Back in 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that public officials suing for defamation must satisfy this more exacting standard, because anything less would infringe on our speech rights. (Three years later, the Supreme Court extended this standard to include public figures). Public figures are generally people of public concern. There is a legitimate interest in talking about them and that discussion should be encouraged. If something false is said about public figures, most of them have access to a microphone and can try to correct the record.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/kash-patel-atlantic-lawsuit-not-220248738.html