At least in California, the law applicable to libel apparently applies to postings on the Internet. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino. Therefore, at least nominal injury is presumed, allowing an award of punitive damages without proof of actual injury. In law, malice makes a bad act worse. So maliciously publishing a falsehood ramps up the damages a jury is likely to award. And it should. But maliciously publishing the truth? While malice (or motive generally) is a basis to question the truthfulness of someone giving evidence, malice does not turn a lawful act into an unlawful act. It is not defamation to publish the truth with the intent of harming. I still wonder. But the continued silence from the one who would be expected to speak on such a simple issue is suggestive. Long silence to prepare for a lawsuit? Why? Where the facts are simply established, the contary is typical. The lawyers for the allegedly injured party rush to court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction amidst a barrage of public statements that their client is being defamed. For a public figure, the need to win in the relevant "court of public opinion" dictates such tactics. Someone is going to be proven right on this issue -- in one "court" or another.