No, because victims of alleged crimes don’t make that decision, although investigators and prosecutors will often respect a victim’s desire not to pursue the case.
Apple tried to sue Gizmodo for buying a prototype iPhone and reporting on it so there is some precedent here.
The question then becomes what is the definition of a 'news reporter', is it someone non-news educated who sits at home making video's or someone who's educated in news reporting making video's. We see news reporters every day on the television reading out the news or going on locations to get the news so is Prosser in the same category as them?
Right, another tired complaint about buying just before a new model comes out. Apple should personally contact you and advise you to hold off for a week or two? Not gonna happen and NOBODY does that, ever. Then the buyer rages on about how they should be able return what they bought and get the new model as an even exchange. Again, not gonna happen.
JFC your ethics are SHADY. There is no justification to post non-consensual nudes of anyone.
The judge and jury do have to consider whether what is being published is "newsworthy" however.
Firstly, the applicant has sworn a signed affidavit which in law is facts in evidence. If you make any false claims in a sworn affidavit you’re breaking the law. Apple making these claims on an affidavit strongly indicates they have the evidence to back up their claims, lest they themselves could be sued.
As a paralegal I have been in many courtrooms and know exactly how the law works. You do realise a sworn affidavit is a lawful claim to have facts in evidence don't you? And you do realise that making a false statement on an affidavit is unlawful? You do realise if Apple can't produce the evidence to back up their sworn statement, they themselves can be sued?
You’re even more cute to think that people tell the truth just because they raise their right hand. Corporations are text book psychopaths.
He/she is correct, though. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have maintained that prior restraint does not apply when the matter is of public interest. That includes intimate photos.
It's irrelevant what may or may not have happened in the past, but what does matter is what is sworn to on the affidavit that was signed in the filing for this originating motion. Regardless of what you believe, making a false statement on a sworn affidavit is against the law and can be prosecuted against and/or sued for. As a paralegal I'm well aware what lawyers get up, and I'm just as well aware of what tricks and lies defendants make. I'm no advocate for Apple, I'm an advocate for the law.
