Actually, see NY Times vs. Sullivan (1964), which established the “actual malice” standard before press reports could be considered to be defamation and libel. Says Wikipedia:

“The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person’s head, such cases — when they involve public figures — rarely prevail.”

What this means is that public figures (which include elected officials by default), rightly or wrongly, find it almost impossible to prevail in libel actions. In addition, your scenario — a public official suing the press because they lost an election — is a novel idea, to say the least. (I don’t know how many elections you’ve lived through, but lies and damned lies seem to be part of the process!)

The press has every right to persuade voters to vote for a particular candidate — or not to vote for a particular candidate. A politician would have no right to sue the press for trying to persuade, even if it’s based on a lie — you’d have to negate the greater right of people to vote for whomever they want for any reason they want and their right to a secret ballot.

To argue the case, you’d have to (1) go thru voter records to find out who voted, (2) drag these tens or hundreds or thousands of voters up on the witness stand, and (3) have them tell you, under oath, who they voted for and why …. a violation of innummerable constitutional rights, more suitable for a police state.

Also, opinions are protected: I’m not sure what kind of damages one could collect if one were merely described as “rude,” as “rude” is an opinion. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently sent a restauranteur back to his kitchen empty-handed because he sued over a bad review.

As far as that goes, a public official can call someone a “wacko.” But that also becomes fair game for reporting and for accounting for the official’s performance. We have the right to know what people in power do, and they are accountable for their actions.

In addition, conceivably a private person or publication being sued by a public official could apply the state “strategic lawsuit against public participation” rules (SLAPP) to argue they are being sued simply to be shut up. It’s an interesting area of law, but it’s for the attorneys to hash out, and this isn’t a law blog!

In any event, the public has the right to know what their public officials are up to, and the press has a duty to report it. It’s kind of depressing and anti-American to be discussing scenarios about why we should be restricting what is said about public officials, rather than looking to open the windows and let more light come in.

But you’ve got some definite points. I think we’ll leave Michael’s comments in the cyberspace twilight zone until we have time to do some due diligence.

revised after a good night’s sleep 7/10.