I've written on the topic and have enough knowledge of law to do so.
There is per se defamation and per quod.
Per se
In a per se defamation action, the statement itself is actionable on its own, the damages will be presumed and the malice element does not have to be proven, unless the plaintiff is a public figure.
Examples:
Accusing someone of a serious criminal offense.
Accusing someone of having an infectious disease.
Accusing someone of conduct incompatible with the person’s business, trade, position or office.
Accusing a woman of a lack of chastity.
Per quod
Defamation per quod cases are much more difficult to prove than per se cases because in per quod cases, the statements are typically a more backhanded than a straightforward per se statement.
You have a few elements to consider here that the defense was never allowed to address because of default.
Are the victims presumed public figures if they chose to do interviews on television?
Was there actual malice? Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. For example, malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being.
These statutes only get you to a point of actually determining damages. The defense was never able to argue damages properly. In fact, that is all the trial was about after the default. However, the defense was gagged and not allowed to argue anything. It was merely a hearing on AJ finances and a bunch of other unrelated issues brought by prosecution that should have never been allowed.
Damages
Damages are meant to restore the injured parties to the de facto position they were in before they suffered harm. Consequently, damages are regarded as remedial measures rather than punitive or preventive, although punitive damages can be awarded for certain kinds of wrongful conduct.
The plaintiffs are in a better monetary position than before the 'defamation' which was never proved, but instead defaulted.
This leaves only one issue despite the default.
Did AJ correct the record? Yes.
Case closed, no damages could exist despite a formal correction of record. This could have occurred on the first day of trial. It did occur during the trial. There were no monetary damages. There were only gains by the plaintiffs in the form of funding campaigns. They also sued other parties and even arms manufacturers. Since AJ didn't kill anyone, he is not liable for the loss of life.
Case closed. One public apology and 1 day of trial later. That's if it was defaulted, which it shouldn't have been in the first place.
I've written on the topic and have enough knowledge of law to do so.
There is per se defamation and per quod.
Per se
Per quod
You have a few elements to consider here that the defense was never allowed to address because of default.
Are the victims presumed public figures if they chose to do interviews on television?
Was there actual malice? Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. For example, malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being.
These statutes only get you to a point of actually determining damages. The defense was never able to argue damages properly. In fact, that is all the trial was about after the default. However, the defense was gagged and not allowed to argue anything. It was merely a hearing on AJ finances and a bunch of other unrelated issues brought by prosecution that should have never been allowed.
Damages
The plaintiffs are in a better monetary position than before the 'defamation' which was never proved, but instead defaulted.
This leaves only one issue despite the default.
Did AJ correct the record? Yes.
Case closed, no damages could exist despite a formal correction of record. This could have occurred on the first day of trial. It did occur during the trial. There were no monetary damages. There were only gains by the plaintiffs in the form of funding campaigns. They also sued other parties and even arms manufacturers. Since AJ didn't kill anyone, he is not liable for the loss of life.
Case closed. One public apology and 1 day of trial later. That's if it was defaulted, which it shouldn't have been in the first place.