We should hope she prevails because the conservative principle she invokes is resistance to playing the bigotry card. False allegations of anti-semitism are nearly as damning as charges of racism, especially in New York and especially in the publishing world.
More, the racism/bigotry card has been played by the left all too often, in fact, it is in my estimation the main justification for an otherwise played out philosophy. Racism/bigotry hypocrisy is the last trump of leftist scoundrels.
We are in a situation in which Jesse Jackson can extort millions from corporations for racial insensitivity. If we allow these corporations the race/bigotry card without consequences, they will take the safe course and promulgate explicit policies and implicit cultural pressure which will make speech for conservatives immeasurably more risky. Ask Imus(not a conservative) Lott and Limbaugh.
From our tagline, one could infer you are a Jew. If so, it seems to me that you might have an interest in saving the opprobrium of anti-semitism from trivialization.
“We should hope that Regan is awarded the full $100m if she climbs the two steep mountains she alleges: proving actual malice (she must prove she did not say it, they know it, and alleged the lie for material gain anyway), and proving actual damages.”
WE don’t hope anything of the sort. You have this wholly backwards.
The conservative principle I believe in is affronted by the litigiousness of our society, and the repression of free speech a Regan win would abet. One only needs to look at the British misuse of the libel laws by Islamists/Arabs/Leftists to inhibit criticism to understand the adverse affects on free speech from libel suits.
Further, a loss by Regan would deflate Jesse Jackson since it is Regan that is playing the race/religion card for profit.
On the law you are wrong too. Since the NY Times v Sullivan constructive malice is sufficient.