here we are in a full blown trial. what makes this case so different? >> these cases do, laura, usually get dismissed, based on first amendment grounds. i think it's been, maybe even 50 years since "the new york times" has gone to trial. and so it really is unusual. there are a couple twists and turns in this case but you are absolutely right that mr. bennett was a very good witness today, very contrite, very straightforward. they made a mistake. and the first amendment protects that. it only imposes liability where a public figure sues where there's actual malice and there's no way ms. palin is going to prove that. >> on that notion of actual malice, of course, it makes you assume that the person has a higher standing than, say, the average person. if you're a public figure, there has to be actual malice shown because the assumption is you have thrust yourself into the public limelight. therefore you don't have the same benefits of the everyday person. in terms of the malice standard, though, might this case present an opportunity for this to be revisited. we've got supreme court justices