"The court said these are X" and "it is a fact that these are X" are distinct claims, and a lot of journalistic manners is pretending you never state as fact things that could be disputed.
Of course, since there are lots of ways to describe things in bad faith without ever breaking that rule, it can ring hollow once you lose trust...
Are court decisions universally recognized? If a court rules someone true in one area, couldn't it still be considered slander/libel in another area if another court rules it as not being true?
It is a bit like saying convicted murderer vs murderer. One is claiming the conviction for murder happened (which generally correlates to the murder happening but doesn't openly claim such) while the other directly claims the murder happens. If the conviction is later overturned, does the second claim open one up to more libability for a false claim?
Are laws in any country universally recognized and respected?
> If the conviction is later overturned, does the second claim open one up to more libability for a false claim?
Common sense would say before you go claim libel you first demand correction, or place onus on publisher to correct a publication with the new developed news.
I know it became normal to police speech nowadays but if a conviction - even before appeal - doesnt allow the use of a label/word, what does?
Now, being CNBC reporting this i guess the issue is less about risk of libel and more to do with the current stance that europe is out to get american companies
The people of CNBC's audience are assumed to have reason to want Google to not lose the case. Major news outlets are biased towards capital holders. This is what journalism looks like when it speaks to its intended audience.
Of course, since there are lots of ways to describe things in bad faith without ever breaking that rule, it can ring hollow once you lose trust...