You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was hap

You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was happening. He deliberately lied, and deliberately spread false, vicious claims about the parents. He makes a living of spreading fabulous and wild lies designed to spread fear and anger. In this case, and in the context of all those other anger fueling claims, he lied and said that the shooting was a false flag, that no one died, and that the parents were crises actors who faked the death of their loved ones because the state was going to use it as an excuse for gun control, and he continued to claim it, even after the parents were harassed, even after they initially sued him, and even went so far as to make accusations about the parents and judge on TV during the trial. What do you believe his goal was? And do you believe those claims don't meet the requirement for defamation? Again I ask how you'd feel in my proposed scenario, if I accused you of being a child rapist on TV, even if I didn't say you needed to be stopped, but that you were raping children for satan. Would you think that's just fine because no one rational would believe it?