In 2001, Tom Cruise sued a gay porn actor Chad Slater for slander. The actor claimed his gay affair with cruise broke up the actor's marriage. Now, according to Google AI, you have to prove in court, that the statement caused you harm to your reputation, potentially including economic damages (if you are a public figure, you must additionally prove the defendant acted with "actual malice", meaning they knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truthfulness). I read a transcript of the court documents leaked online around this time. And in the suit, Cruise's lawyer kept doing this weird dance with his words. He kept saying it was outrageous what the Slater claimed. It ruined Cruise's reputation. The emotional damage it caused was severe. He said Cruise was gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." He basically kept saying that throughout the lawsuit he filed. Every time, I seem to recall. That's wonderful if Cruise doesn't think there's anything wrong with being gay. But how can you claim damages and harm to your reputation if you don't think there's anything wrong with "that" to begin with?