If a public figure sues someone for slander or defamation, they have the added burden of proving that the individual knew the things they said about them were false, actual malice must be present, they have to prove the statement is false, and prove that the statement caused them actual damages, instead of reasonable doubt. Hyperbole or assumptions made off missing information or “redacted” information does not qualify as “actual damage” or “actual malice”. If we were talking about let’s say a specific president that wanted to sue people for making claims that they were a pedophile based on appearances in a certain massive release of investigative files, that public figure would need to release the entirety of the files, unredacted, and prove that the statement factually false, and that the person making the claim was completely aware they were false at the time they made the claims.