unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false
Where in that legal definition of "actual malice" do you find anything about ill will?
The only reason I point out that "actual malice" in defamation law has nothing to do with ill will, is that most people see the word "malice" and think "ill will." But the law is not encumbered with following the usual dictionary.
At any rate, I agree that "actual malice" must be proven (in a defamation case brought by a public figure), but "actual malice" under the peculiar definition that applies in defamation cases -- where "actual malice" has nothing at all to do with ill will.
Back to our earlier exchange and your fine point about “ill will.” I gave you “ill thought” over “ill action” in the area of malice in this type of defamation, Malice here is clearly laid out as reckless or intent, whether you think that means “ill will” or not. The argument isn’t whether the defendant has “ill will” but whether he was reckless or intentional.