4 ms·
In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the
by bhupy 6y ago
In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation.
> now disproven legal theories
Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
- monocasa 6y agoThe NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.
- bhupy 6y agoCorrect, and it's accountable to voters, it isn't some opaque black box (or rather, it shouldn't be). The whole point is that, in a democracy, the press (NYT et al) is responsible for fully reporting on the workings of the government (NLRB). The GP commenter is pointing out that the NYT hasn't adequately done that, and I tend to agree.