I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what I would be thinking if I happened to end up on the jury for something like this. The remarks about somebody blocking and smirking are obviously referencing Sandmann. Sandmann was accused of blocking the Indian and not allowing him to retreat; this is objectively false. This man could have just walked around him, or went back the way he came. And furthermore, Sandmann claimed he locked eyes and walked straight up to him, I think a jury should at leas be allowed to view the facts and make a decision on whether Sandmann was blocking the Indian. Furthermore, you are under no obligation to move out of the way of someone who is moving straight at you. Nate doesn't believe the description of Sandmann's conduct to be defamatory. Well, there was a massive nationwide outbreak of outrage directed against him. People were demanding for him and others in his group to be named and shamed. The mob was seeking to harm their ability to attend a reputable college, and pursue a successful career. They endured harassment and were threatened because of this. All these things clearly illustrate the results of defamation. I don't see how Nate can arrive at the conclusions he did here.