I’m no lawyer so I don’t know, but that sounds like a crazy law. You mean to tell me ANY news organization can basically attribute anything to a candidate? I think you are right because some of the stuff I read is so far out there it’s crazy.
without a candidate’s being able to prove actual malice, and that’s a real reach believe me..... yes, pretty much the press can print just about any damned thing it wishes about a political candidate
the standard for defamation of a political candidate or public official is along the lines of NYT v. Sullivan, which is approximately like this.... “actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of same”
and that’s almost impossible for a plaintiff to prove in most cases, and as a voluntary public figure there’s no question but that DT would have the burden of proof
besides, it usually takes years for such a claim, or almost any real case nowadays for that matter, to work its way through the courts (ask Barry Goldwater, for instance, his 1964 case didn’t get decided until some four or five years later and then there was appeal...) point being, 99 percent of the litigation threat is just “I will consume your firm’s legal defense budget”...
FYI.
“You mean to tell me ANY news organization can basically attribute anything to a candidate? “
Yep. The law is designed to keep candidates from using the courts to suppress the truth about a candidate but in effect means that almost anything can be said as long as it is not a threat. It also means the press can lie if they want to