Generally, to prove libel or slander, you must prove that the writer *intended* to bring harm on the person or business about which he wrote. It also helps if there are inaccuracies or distortions of fact involved.

But with an "absence of malice," and with a factually true article, there is usually no case. (I'm talking general principles here -- not commenting on the article in question).

>Okay, I'm confused. I read a biting, highly critical review of a magazine. Although it was a scathing review, nothing in it struck me as unfair, untrue, or malicious. On what ground would anyone get sued here?