Sean,
I said this is a case of defamation per se, that's a legal term of art which refers to a distinct kind of defamation. In these instances, the law generally presumes both harm and malice, therefore malice need not be proved. Also, I was referring to individual priests, not the SSPX as a whole.
Yes; my apologies:
I thought you were using the term “defamation” in a lay/colloquial sense, where you really meant libel (ie., I missed the “per se” in your previous post).
Thanks for the clarification.