Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2018 Page 9 of 22 therefore, is stronger than Plaintiffs’ connection to Florida. See id. (“a corporation’s principal place of business is a more important contact than the place of incorporation, and this is particularly true in situations where the corporation does little, or no, business in the latter place.”). 4. The Place Where the Parties’ Relationship is Centered This factor carries no weight. The parties do not allege any relationship to one another besides the alleged defamation. On balance, the Section 145(2) factors weigh slightly in favor of applying New York law to the two affirmative defenses at issue here. Given that these factors do not weigh conclusively in favor of applying New York law, the Court turns to the Section 6 factors. 5. The Section 6 Factors Not all of the Section 6 factors are applicable here, but three are: (1) the interest of other states in the determination of the particular issue, (2) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, and (3) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result. Id. § 6. As to the first and second, the Court finds persuasive the reasoning of a similar case from the Northern District of Illinois. See Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., No. 99 C 3477, 2000 WL 631344 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2000), aff’d, 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001). That case also arose in the context of an article published nationally and where the decision to publish was made in New York. Id. at *1. The court reasoned that “[t]he issue of whether a statement is defamatory or invades the right to privacy is distinct from the issue of whether that statement is privileged . . . . the fair reporting privilege is meant to protect speakers, not provide a remedy to plaintiffs.” Id. at *5, 7. Because the policy behind the privilege is to protect speakers, and because the decision to publish the article was 9