I disagree with the Democrat-appointed judges on the panel, of course. Virginia law includes a concept called "defamation by implication" - and recognizes that the defendant may have committed defamation by an implied misrepresentation of facts contained within a statement. See, what the Court did was a bit of a trick - by creating the false assumption that the silence on the tape, taken out of context and alone, comprised the "statement" that was the subject of the suit; our position was that the entire pseudo-documentary comprised the "statement", which implied that stupid gun activists don't know enough to answer simple questions about firearms law. Nevertheless, it is clear from publicly available information that the defendants were misrepresenting the facts in order to further a political agenda, so I think we got what we wanted: we demonstrated pretty clearly that those guys aren't reliable or credible. Thing is, they're preaching to their choir the same way I am to mine: the people who don't want to believe that there is any necessity for taking responsibility for one's own defense against criminal violence just don't want to hear the truth, and won't listen, no matter what.
I think the lesson for us is to stop trying to engage in rational discussion with a group of people who are fundamentally irrational or nonrational. People who are so self-important, self-aggrandizing, and self-centered that they can't hear anything that doesn't agree with the crap that's already rattling around in their heads, will never be convinced by truth, because they wouldn't know it if it came up and bit 'em on the leg.