Can you explain that case?
(ELI5 is fine!)
In the simplest: ordinarily defamation requires a showing that the person who uttered a false statement about another person due, at Least, to negligence as to whether it is true or not. In New York Times v Sullivan SCOTUS set a new standard, as applied to public figures, that the statement must be made maliciously, with knowledge that it is false, or reckless disregard as to whether it’s true or not. There’s no proper basis for such a standard and essentially allows just about anything to be said about a public figure