In order for a public figure to prevail in a libel suit, they must show actual malice.
But usually they do not. Public figures are the exception. Most defamation suits are by and against just regular people.
I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)
Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".
With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.
This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.
What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.
That is not quite the same thing.
In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.
Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.
Yep - I'm sure no one at Google thought about this. You should email them quick!
What, you think Google is magic, or prescient?
Google has had A LOT of bad ideas. And went on to implement them, only later to realize they were bad ideas.
The thing about Google is that it (or Alphabet) is big enough that it can afford such failures... no matter how much it costs the rest of us.
So why did Clapper commit perjury in front of congress to cover up these programs?
Besides, we have the documents leaked by Snowden, which revealed what they revealed. And as a result we know that we were lied to, and deceived, and criminally abused, over oh so many things...
Good intentions do not make up for that. Professionalism doesn't make up for that. Nothing, in fact, makes up for that.
The court ruling doesn't give any context.
Yes, in fact it does.
Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"?
No, but yours appeared to be, from your comment: "I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?"
I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
It's a free country. Assume away. It won't get you anywhere, but I will defend to the... uh... change in my pocket, your right to do so.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
Wait a minute... didn't you just imply that the source doesn't matter? You just got done insulting me for having that very attitude (albeit incorrectly, as I actually stated the opposite). Right up there, a few lines above, in quotes.
You leave me with little choice but to just repeat what I said before: I'm sorry your delicate eyes were offended by all that nasty material you had to be exposed to for the 10 seconds it took to find the link to the actual, unbiased source.
Yours must be a very hard life, with all that offense going on all the time.
You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.