From your link,

(1) Traditionally, libel was a tort governed by state law. State courts generally follow the common law of libel, which allows recovery of damages WITHOUT PROOF of actual harm.

(2) Under the traditional rules of libel, injury is presumed from the fact of publication. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment's protection of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION limits a State's ability to award damages in actions for libel.

I'm guessing you're leaning towards version (1)? Or do you have some evidence that the accused has caused you some demonstrable harm?

I just want to understand your logic so I don't overstep my place. I'm pretty new here and I certainly wouldn't want to be serially-auto-downvoted by a top-tier witness like yourself.