In line the majority ruling, if I start calling you a pedophile in a blog but none of your neighbors read that blog, you haven't been harmed and have no cause for complaint.
Clarence Thomas, as usual, got it right: "Mistakenly" labeling people as potential terrorists is a harm in itself, even if they are never denied a car loan.
But soon if you're white, conservative, Christian, voted for Trump we'll all be on the government's "Domestic Terrorist" list, but what harm could that do? Just an inconsequential label, no biggie, what's to worry about?
same silly group that refused to hear all legitimate challenges to fraud election.
The first amendment comes with the duty to tell the truth falsely calling someone a terrorist even if you are a faceless corporation should not be protected and that company should be held liable especially when the terrorist witchhunts are about to be spread to patriots and populists. I know we weakened our libel laws over the years as Benjamin Rush, a doctor and founding father successfully sued a newspaper with an axe to grind against him for publishing false allegations against him. This whole harm thing is bullshit
Private monopoly businesses continue to peddle their neo-Marxism on U.S. citizens.
Excuse me but...WHY ARE CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES LABELING PEOPLE AS "POTENTIAL TERRORIST"!?
May depend on the wording. Merely noting that there is a "John Smith" on the government's terror watch list doesn't seem actionable by itself, in that the info is already public.
The harm comes when the credit report implies without further evidence that it is THIS "John Smith" on the government's terror watch list.
More useless bastards that need to be unemployed!!!
This is a free speech victory for corporations. However this is not new law it is inline with already existing law. Nothing changes.
This is a free speech victory for corporations.
We build Freedom Of Speech Software. We champion free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.