“...this does set a new precedent. It means you can be sued when referring to an unincorporated group of people.”
Except it doesn’t set any new precedent. This is just one category of what is known as “defamation by implication”, and people have been getting sued over it for a long, long time. The courts have been given divided rulings on whether defamation by implication is actionable, with some saying yes, some saying no, and some saying “it depends”. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn’t issued a definitive answer yet, so whether you can sue for it depends on state law and the precedents that have been set by the district courts where you live.
The Jones case wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the case or this particular question, so it won’t even be added to the list of precedents that already exist on the question in that particular district.
Good to know. Thanks. This is not something I follow closely. I’m glad I commented because I learned something.