Even then, the holocaust denial does have some pretty thorough bases to base the opinions on, so it cant really be considered slander.
I wonder how suing for slander would work against any online paper, there are so many posting slander there that its just become an everyday thing. To the point where you just lose credibility in the paper posting that trash, and move on. The way it should work, no need to sue anyone.
The validity of your sourcing has an impact in both scenarios.
If the Daily Mail had been able to provide evidence to support their claim it wouldn't have been slander - no cash payout. But they were not able to provide that, so were doomed to fail.
If your Hol
aust denial is a well put together historical assessment then the outcome of any court battle may also go differently. Any that do not, 'holocause never happened xDDDD', are doomed to fail.
However, you're climbing a steep mountain with that last one since proving that claim with sufficient evidence is a monumental task. To avoid being immediately panned, it not only needs to provide strong evidence that supports the argument but provide a reasonable assessment of all the historical evidence that supports the notion that it did happen. This is a feat I've never seen anyone achieve despite the freedom of most countries to publish articles or books on this subject, even the best arguments I've seen only ever nail that 'I found a source that supports me' part, never an acceptable explanation for every other source out there that disproves it.
It's like doing GCSE's all over again, you're given 7 sources and asked 'based on the evidence before you, assess the view that ____'. If you only talk about the 1 source that agrees with you and ignore the others you fail.