I am not a fan of American attitudes to what is marketed as free speech, but this does seem extreme.
Although I can see the point of this outside of corporate type stuff. For an individual, one could argue it makes sense. For a corporate entity (or even a private business), no way.
It makes sense to me if you’re talking about information that wasn’t public already. For example if you obtain someone’s private communications and make them public to smear them. This is just stating information that’s publicly available to a large audience. How do news organizations not just constantly get sued for defamation any time they print or state anything negative?
Edit: I assume, anyway. The article doesn’t say anything about this streamer obtaining privileged documents that they used to get this information or anything, so I’m making the assumption that they used publicly available sources.
I am not a fan of American attitudes to what is marketed as free speech, but this does seem extreme.
Although I can see the point of this outside of corporate type stuff. For an individual, one could argue it makes sense. For a corporate entity (or even a private business), no way.
It makes sense to me if you’re talking about information that wasn’t public already. For example if you obtain someone’s private communications and make them public to smear them. This is just stating information that’s publicly available to a large audience. How do news organizations not just constantly get sued for defamation any time they print or state anything negative?
Edit: I assume, anyway. The article doesn’t say anything about this streamer obtaining privileged documents that they used to get this information or anything, so I’m making the assumption that they used publicly available sources.