The First Amendment's protection of free speech "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971). InBertrand v. Mullin, the court considered whether a political campaign advertisement defamed Bertrand, a candidate for the Iowa Senate. The ad addressed Bertrand's previous employment at a pharmaceutical company stating, in relevant part, "...Because Bertrand doesn't want you to know he put his profits ahead of children's health. Bertrand was a sales agent for a big drug company that was rated the most unethical company in the world. The FDA singled out Bertrand's company for marketing a dangerous sleep drug to children...." The court addressed the pivotal issue of whether plaintiff had established that defendants acted with actual malice, ultimately holding that plaintiff had not met his burden.Do you agree with the court's holding?In your view, is it fair to hold public figures to the additional requirement of proving malice to establish defamation?Should all plaintiffs in a defamation action be required to establish malice? What would be the pros and cons of requiring proof of malice in all defamation actions, rather than only for public figures?