reject the claim that actual malice was established by the evidence that Mullin continued to air the commercial after Bertrand publicly told him the implication was false. See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, 491 U.S. at 691 n. 37, 109 S.Ct. at 2698 n. 37, 105 L.Ed.2d at 591 n. 37 (“Of course, the press need not accept ‘denials, however vehement; such denials are so commonplace in the world of polemical charge and countercharge that, in themselves, they hardly alert the conscientious reporter to the likelihood of error.’ ” (quoting Edwards v. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, Inc., 556 F.2d 113, 121 (2d Cir. 1977))). A finding of actual malice based on this circumstance in this case would significantly chill constitutionally protected speech. See N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 286, 84 S.Ct. at 729, 11 L.Ed.2d at 710 (<HOLDING>). The actual malice standard cannot be applied
holding failure to retract an allegedly defamatory statement is not by itself adequate evidence of malice for constitutional purposes holding when defamatory statement involved issue of public concern that private individual was required to prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages against media defendant holding plaintiff failed to present evidence of actual malice because defendants explanation of the mistaken statement shows negligence but no more than that holding failure to investigate before publishing is not sufficient to prove actual malice holding under federal law that public figure claiming iied based on defamatory nature of speech must prove actual malice