In the U.S., it's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for things like slander, defamation, and libel. "Under the strict liability rules of common law,

In the U.S., it's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for things like slander, defamation, and libel. "Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of the press from commenting on the activities of a public official. Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity." The only hope here is proving 1) that they statements are in fact false and 2) that they were made recklessly and with "actual malice" (the legal standard). Proving they are false is damn hard since Eaton basically paraphrased and summarized his own opinion on the statements by claiming they were anti-semitic, racist, etc. How would they prove Eaton's opinion was false or at least wasn't what he claimed to believe? Also, proving actual malice will also be near impossible. EDIT - forgot source link - https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-and-public-figures/ https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-a...