The elements of defamation are well established. Defamation predates the First Amendment and has never been protected by it.

So you don’t think that will be their defense of Candass?

Yes, I think they will use established procedures to try to prove their case. Why wouldn’t they?

Oh it will be, it just won’t work. And then when she loses, she’ll make a GoFundMe for her legal fees claiming her freedom of speech is being erased by woke Marxist liberals or something

Probably, ugh

Despite the millions her husband, a British Lord, has.

There is limited FA protection for defamatory statements against public figures. The statements not only have to be false, but they also have to be made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth, which is not required for a claim by other plaintiffs.

Defamation being harder to prove does not change that defamation is not protected speech.

But what makes it not protected speech? It’s not illegal to lie. I think her husband is very wealthy so I’m sure justice will escape her

Defamation requires a provably false statement of fact, that has been published, and caused damages, and that the speaker has some level of fault - for a public figure the level of fault is actual malice: knowledge that the statement is false or a reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

The difficulty here will be proving damages.

Yep

Because of the FA, defamatory statements against public figures are not actionable in certain circumstances, so that means that such defamation is, indeed, protected by the FA

No. Defamation is not protected. There is a higher bar to prove the defamation, but if the defamation is proven, it becomes unprotected speech. If you cannot meet the higher bar then it is not, by definition, defamation.

But a statement can be “defamatory” even though there is no viable cause of action because of the higher threshold for a claim involving a public figure, because of the protection afforded by the FA

No. By definition a statement that does not meet the elements of defamation is not defamation.

When she knows it isnt true & has malicious intent. Thats where the line is. The Macron's can show it was malicious & Owens profitted off of it. Similar case (legally) to Alex Jones's defamation suit.