Headline: Richard Simmons ordered to pay $130,000 after transgender lawsuit

From NBC News

More than six months after dismissing Richard Simmons' defamation lawsuit against the National Enquirer and Radar Online, which ran articles alleging that Simmons had undergone sex reassignment surgery, a judge ordered the fitness guru to pay nearly $130,000 in attorneys' fees to the media outlets and their publisher, American Media, according to court documents.

Well, they didn't really say he "had undergone sex reassignment surgery" they said:

source

Reminds me of this scene from The Invention of Lying:

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Keosian issued his ruling on Friday. The defendants had filed a motion in January seeking $220,000, which Simmons' lawyers criticized as a "billing fiesta."
Simmons sued the media outlets in May 2017 after they ran articles claiming he is transgender. A June 2016 cover of the National Enquirer, for example, read: "Richard Simmons: He's Now a Woman." In his lawsuit, Simmons claimed the outlets published the stories with "calculated malice."
"This case is about a particularly egregious and hurtful campaign of defamations and privacy invasions, falsely asserting that Mr. Simmons is transitioning from a male to a female, including 'shocking sex surgery,' breast implants, hormone treatments and consultations on medical castrations," Simmons' lawsuit stated.
While the National Enquirer stated on its website that its reporting on Simmons was based on "credible sources," Simmons, in his lawsuit, alleged that a former assistant, whom he said has "blackmailed, extorted and stalked" him, was responsible for the false claims.

Well, on its face it seems to be a clear case of defamation in the state of California. There was a lie told about someone in print that is hurtful to them and the media organizations printing these salacious lies knew or should have known that they were false and clearly did not do enough due diligence to establish that he had "castrated" himself. Actual malice is defined as publishing defamation with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth

Clearly there was a reckless disregard for the truth because none of their claims were true and whether or not Richard Simmons has a boob job or not should be something you can and should verify before going to print. Let's look at the requirements for defamation in CA:

In California, a claim for defamation involves a false statement made by one person about another person, which causes harm to a person’s property, business, profession or occupation. Defamatory statements are typically made using two methods:
(1) Slander: Making defamatory statements by a transitory (nonfixed) representation, usually an oral representation.
(2) Libel: Making defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium such as a magazine or newspaper.
In order to meet the elements for a defamation cause of action, a successful action must include:
A false and defamatory statement about another
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (not including the person defamed by the statement)
Damage to the person defamed. Publication, in the context of defamation, does not mean it must be in print. Rather, it is considered published when it is made to a third party.
Defamation Per Se
California also recognizes “defamation per se,” or defamation that is presumed to cause damages without the need for any proof by the defamed person. Defamation per se is typically asserted in instances where there are attacks on a person’s professional character, allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste, allegations that a person is infected with an STD, or allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral “turpitude.
Source

Clearly claiming that someone lives in a "lives in a bizarre new world" and all the rest is designed to portray him as crazy, something which can't possibly be beneficial for his brand. Richard Simmons has always portrayed himself a wholesome family-friendly person. People are not going to want their kids around someone who is "bizarre".

source

So Judge, it seems as though we have all the elements, a textbook case of defamation, how can this possibly not be defamation?

In his tentative ruling, issued in August 2017, Keosian stated that being misidentified as transgender does not inherently expose someone to "hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy," and therefore does not rise to the level of defamation.
"While, as a practical matter, the characteristic may be held in contempt by a portion of the population, the court will not validate those prejudices by legally recognizing them," Keosian ruled.

Wow, the judge just acknowledged that it would be harmful because it would cause him to be held in contempt by a portion of the population, that can't help workout video sales, but that is it not defamation because claiming someone has castrated themselves and is bizarre, ridiculing them and exposing them to obloquy, is just fine because even though this may cause real damage to his brand it ought not to because that portion of the population is wrong. So you can lie about someone in print and ridicule them as long as you are just saying they cut their cock off and got implants, that's not defamation. There is nothing wrong if he was transgender, he is a grown man, more power to him, but he is not so that is a damaging lie.

source