@IñakiViggers and @IllusiveBrian have either of you been to court before? The bar didn't originate these claims they heard them from someone else and acted accordingly.

How is free speech not a defense here. Someone told the bar something about the guy and they thought it was true. You are acting like the bar made this up and defamed him.

As far as defamation in court it's meant to counteract people LIYING about you to hurt you financially or in some official manor, not to counteract your friends being upset at a bar.

@Putvi (1) Free speech relates to discussion about matters of public concern, not about private persons. Your presumption that any false accusation enjoys constitutional protection reflects a misunderstanding of the First Amendment. (2) Rumors are defamatory if they amount to false statements of fact. (3) The wrong of defamation is not limited to audiences who are financially or politically related to the defamed person; it also includes any member of society.

@IllusiveBrian Actual malice needs to be proved if Scott pursues a claim of defamation per se. Otherwise, he would be awarded only "nominal damages" of one dollar. By contrast, if Scott is able to prove special/concrete damages, he would not need to prove actual malice in this case. And yes, a defamed person needs to ponder between the risk of Streisand effect (as you mention) or teaching a lesson to the defamers by bringing them to court for unjustifably injuring his good name and reputation.

@IñakiViggers in what world? Free speech is free speech

your friends getting mad at you bc of a rumor is not a legal issue

or every middle school child alive would be sued

people tell rumors daily without being sued

you really need to do more research or visit a court room