My question involves defamation in the state of: Idaho
I understand that with libel, the burden of proof is on the person who made the statement, because it reached so many people, whereas with slander, the burden of poof is on the person seeking suit, since not many people were told.
Suppose someone tells a news reporter that Mike kills babies (slander, right?). The news reporter then truthfully reports that Sam told him that Mike kills babies. The news reporter has told the truth, and is held harmless, right? and since Sam did not publish it, but rather the reporter published it, that means that this is slander, not libel. So, even though millions of people heard that Sam said Mike kills babies, and Mike's reputation is ruined, the burden of proof is on Mike that he does not kill babies. That statement could be hard to prove either way. Is this a loophole around the spirit of libel law and burden of proof?