I think it is more akin to someone using a search engine to find something, then suing the search engine for it. The difference here is if the thing found is "

I think it is more akin to someone using a search engine to find something, then suing the search engine for it. The difference here is if the thing found is "libelous" then the original publisher would be responsible, not the search engine. But in this case, there is no other "publisher". The publisher here is the person posting the chat transcript, they are the ones with agency and causing those bits to be presented in the public where they become libelous. I am 100% behind protections for journalists, but in this case it would be the journalist who "uncovered" the statements without corroborating them that is ultimately responsible for putting forth false facts. Also, not a lawyer, not legal advice.