3 ms·

> The fact that neither Apple nor Amazon sued Bloomberg for defama­tion—despite being extremely rich, finicky, and liti­gious—made nary a dent For private indi

• Hizonner 5y ago
  Not to mention that suing over something like that would just have called attention to it. There's no universe in which Apple or Amazon would actually benefit from filing that kind of lawsuit even if they won it. And there are relatively few universes in which whoever was making the decision would be dumb enough to think they'd benefit.
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    Only reason for them to fill such suit is if they were malicious and wanted the other party to waste time, money and resources... Not exactly something that is good corporate leadership. Or even good for their shareholders.
• vel0city 5y ago
  > were made with malicious intent That's not what "actual malice" means. Actual malice means: > with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not So its not just that they wanted to harm the person, but that they took reckless disregard to whether it was true or not. Essentially, writing something without even doing a bit of fact finding to try and support it would be considered "actual malice". You don't need to prove the defendant wanted to harm the person being libeled, just that they didn't care whether or not what they were saying was true or not.
• Maursault 5y ago
  > The 9-0 supreme court case that set this precedence: Small nitpick: a decision is not precedent until it is 1) challenged and 2) survives the challenge. A decision in isolation without seeing a challenge and also surviving that challenge is technically not precedent (though it still is the Law of the Land, precedence or not).
  • Manuel_D 5y ago
    A decision absolutely is precedence before it's been challenged. Otherwise, there's be nothing to challenge - a challenge is an attempt to change the existing precedence and create a new status quo on something.
    • Maursault 5y ago
      You are mistaken. Say a lower court delivers a ruling. That is not precedent, but it is the Law of the Land until overturned. Say an appeals court upholds that ruling... then the ruling becomes precedent. If never challenged, it isn't precedent, merely the law. Roe was the law of the land but didn't establish precedence until upheld in Casey. If precedent occurred on the initial ruling, that ruling could never be challenged as courts are compelled to uphold precedent of previous rulings until such time as challenges reach a higher court and are overturned.
      • Manuel_D 5y ago
        > That is not precedent, but it is the Law of the Land until overturned. The fact that a ruling sets the law of the land is what precedence means. It means other rulings follow the previous, preceding rulings. Roe absolutely was precedence before Casey - that's why abortion was legal in the 1970s and 1980s before Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
        • Maursault 5y ago
          Roe was law, certainly, but only after Casey were courts compelled to treat it as established precedent as the findings in Roe were reasserted. Prior to Casey, Roe had not been seriously challenged in a way that would affect Roe. Casey upheld Roe, establishing Roe as precedent. If today, the Supreme Court issued a finding overturning Roe, it would be law, but that would not establish any precedent. It would be ignoring precedent. But subsequently if this new ruling overturning Roe was challenged and upheld, only then does it become precedent. Not every finding of the Supreme Count or any court establishes precedent. Only the findings upholding previous cases allow those previous cases to become precedent. Otherwise, the word "precedent" becomes superfluous and has no distinct meaning from "the law."