statements are undoubtedly of public concern. See infra Part III.C.4.a. Thus, falsity is an element Montgomery must establish in order to succeed on his defamation claims, and evidence demonstrating falsity is of critical relevance. At the dame time, the issue would be no less relevant even if Montgomery anticipated that a court would conclude he is merely a private individual (and if Defendants were found to be non-media defendants). In those circumstances, at least under Florida law, truth operates as a defense to a plaintiffs claim, rather than an element the plaintiff must prove. See, e.g., In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases-Report No. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions), 35 So.3d 666, 729-30 (Fla.2010). But see Hepps, 475 U.S. at 776, 106 S.Ct. 1558 (<HOLDING>). Whether in an effort to rebut Montgomery’s
holding that defendants bear the burden of showing that the challenged act was objectively reasonable citation omitted holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence holding that in a case where a private figure brings a defamation claim based on a matter of public concern the common laws rule on falsitythat the defendant must bear the burden of proving truth must  fall  to a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity emphasis added holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that in a defamation case against a media defendant for speech of public concern there is a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity as well as fault before recovering damages