Even for the Daily Beast, which has never enjoyed a reputation for high standards, Holt’s false and defamatory claims against me were too much. Hours after I contacted the magazine’s editors, they retracted Holt’s key claims, deleting the false headline, editing multiple paragraphs, adding additional material debunking Holt’s argument, and appending a 500-word editor’s note—more than half as long as the article itself—featuring my full rebuttal. Holt deleted his social media post featuring the defamatory content and endured significant criticism.

What are the lessons here? First, a prosaic one: Left-wing media outlets are more than willing to lie about opponents for political advantage. But second, an opportunity: Conservatives who are willing to defend themselves aggressively and have the resources to threaten legal action can force dishonest publications to concede, reversing the dynamics of such attacks. In my case, the attempted smear campaign did not damage me but instead the reputation of the Daily Beast and Jared Holt. Had they not relented, it could have hurt them financially, too.

[This should embarrass the Daily Beast enough to get rid of Holt, who is a malevolent activist, not a journalist. It probably won’t, which is why at some point the necessity of financial penalties cannot be avoided. Too many media outlets use ‘journalism’ as a cover for biased activism and character assassination, and not enough financial incentives have been put in place against it to change the dynamic. Perhaps only a repudiation of the Sullivan standard on defamation will suffice for that, a point Clarence Thomas has made on multiple occasions. — Ed]