Partisan judge. She must appeal.
She absolutely needs to follow this through to the Supreme Court if necessary. What this judge said was that the benefit of a free press, even if it leads to damages to an individual citizen, is worth those damages. It’s an argument of sacrifice of the individual citizen for the ‘greater good’ - defining ‘greater good’ as it favors Goliath over David. This is the kind of argument that would be made in a totalitarian government, either fascist or communist, and Sarah has an obligation to fight this decision (and we have an obligation to fund her to do this, if necessary).
It’s a very basic question. Which is more important, the rights of an individual citizen against false witness and public condemnation, or the rights of media to publish without verification of facts? If this is framed in the right way, it could have a huge impact and set a very important legal precedent. It should absolutely be pursued aggressively.