The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: wikipedia the first amendment

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: . (see in situ)

wikipedia the first amendment

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.