I don't know whether the Dominion lawsuit requires it to prove malice on the part of Fox. But if it does, given Rupert's comment that it was about the green, presumably the Fox defense will be that they did it out of greed rather than out of malice. Which is probably true.
Money brings power which brings money which brings power, etc., etc., etc. Hakuna Matata. It's the circle of life.
I don't know whether the Dominion lawsuit requires it to prove malice on the part of Fox. But if it does, given Rupert's comment that it was about the green, presumably the Fox defense will be that they did it out of greed rather than out of malice. Which is probably true.
Money brings power which brings money which brings power, etc., etc., etc. Hakuna Matata. It's the circle of life.
I don't know whether the Dominion lawsuit requires it to prove malice on the part of Fox. But if it does, given Rupert's comment that it was about the green, presumably the Fox defense will be that they did it out of greed rather than out of malice. Which is probably true.
Money brings power which brings money which brings power, etc., etc., etc. Hakuna Matata. It's the circle of life.
TW, excellent point.
As a juror, I would see greed and malice as equal.
I would, too. I just don't know if the law does, or whether intent matters at all.