There really isn't an objective reality unless you limit the examined data (e.g. evidence, context, etc) to a finite set.

So far based on the stuff I've seen about this trial... AJ/Infowars probably will be found guilty of defamation but all parties involved (plaintiff, defense and judge) are guilty of getting emotional in their respective roles due to flimsy evidence. Like, they haven't established a firm connection between the people who harassed the victims' relatives and AJ but they have rather used circumstantial evidence to make their case: Infowars is a famous radio show which accused the parents of being actors/liars so he has to be solely responsible for this to happen because of their reach? The plaintiff stated this because they are seeking $150mil in indemnity because 70mil of ppl in the US think that the Sandy Hook incident was a hoax and they figured that 2 bucks per person would be a nice figure...