There's a whole section in there about the cases where the precedent was set for each. at first blush, I'm surprised the court sided with the company. Normally, it is only slander if you know you are lying or grossly negligent in checking your facts before you tell your story.
however the rules change (slightly) if you have intentional malice, which you could certainly convince a jury she was hoping it would have a negative impact on their business. But still, if she wasn't lying, it'd be hard to convict her.
there's almost certainly more to this story, there's no such thing as a news story without media slant and intentionally overlooked details.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron