[habinero]

Sure it is, that's how the 1A works. Saying he was convicted of murder is not true, but calling him a murderer is an opinion. Your opinion doesn't even have to be reasonable. It just has to be based on facts that both you and I have.

1A rights are construed really broadly. The courts don't do the 'he wasn't legally convicted therefore it's illegal to call him one' thing.

[otterley]

If that were true, news organizations wouldn't be as careful as they are to preface the word "alleged" before the behavior -- before or after a trial. I don't think you'll find any reputable commercial newsgathering organization that makes a plain statement that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer.

The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against all forms of defamation (though it does put some barriers up that make it harder to win in some circumstances). If it did, defamation as a cause of action wouldn't exist at all.

As a practical matter, though, this is largely theoretical. Once you've been through the rigamarole of arrest, prosecution, and trial, even if you're found not guilty of the crimes committed, the reputational damage is just too widespread. You're not going to go after the defamers: there are just too many, and if you tried, there would be a fair question as to whether you have any positive reputation left to injure. Your life is pretty much ruined. It's a pretty terrible situation for the wrongly accused.

[habinero]

Nope. News companies don't do it because of different reasons.

For one, it's an opinion, and traditional journalism likes to pretend it doesn't have those.

The bigger reason is anyone can sue for anything in the US. Litigation can be ruinously expensive, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get it thrown out. Hundreds of lawsuits gets expensive, even if you win or hand out $25K "get lost" settlements.

(That's why SLAPP laws are so important -- a strong SLAPP law like CA kills this behavior)

Whether or not something is prudent behavior has nothing to do with legality.