I'm not sure why the reply to you (from someone else) has vanished; perhaps that poster deleted it to redraft it. But your description of the case is, well, a l

I'm not sure why the reply to you (from someone else) has vanished; perhaps that poster deleted it to redraft it. But your description of the case is, well, a little facile. This is the case of the Trump-supporting high school student who felt he was being unfairly portrayed in a confrontation with an American Indian activist in January, and indeed, it was dismissed last week. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9844670-181/judge-dismisses-libel-suit-against?sba=AAS https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9844670-181/judge-dismiss... The original reply to you said it was dismissed because the statements accused of being defamatory were mostly opinions, which is true, but in context, they weren't even the Post's opinions: they were statements by others, including the activist, the Post was reporting as having been said. The statements by the activist that he felt threatened are protected because, as opinion, they're not subject to libel laws; the Post's reporting on the activist's statements appear to be accurate.