The actual malice standard creates breathing room for public debate by protecting accidental misstatements about powerful people while still allowing for liability for intentional lies. But public officials and public figures, whom we expect to tolerate sharp public criticism, must also show in a defamation case that the speaker didn’t just inadvertently misspeak, but intentionally published falsehoods. From the start of the Dominion lawsuit, Fox News had pressed an argument that would have created a form of actual malice on steroids, preventing accountability altogether. Carefully calibrated doctrines protect neutral reporting and require courts to examine whether an outlet goes beyond reporting to endorsing falsehoods. There has actually been a movement to revisit the actual malice standard but in favor of narrowing it — or even eliminating it altogether — rather than expanding it.

---