That statement is false
When displaying problems to the public, people become far less likely to admit any mistakes/shortcomings, which most likely would prolong the problems. Not only that, displaying it to the public would make people start to take sides and the conflict could spread to the rest of the group.
Powers are shared between the state governments and the federal government.
Deliberate, matter of fact calculation of the most efficient way to accomplish any task
Answer and Explanation:
1. Prosecutors may claim that the inaccurate report to which Rachel had access could induce misinterpretation on her part and that, in any case, Peter was already on the police for vandalism, which contributed to Rachel's conclusion. These justifications would not be successful, because Rachel had many ways to find out what actually happened to Peter.
2. Peter would sue Rachel for defamation and would likely succeed, as he has several witnesses that Rachel released incorrect information and that it affects his reputation.
3. The current malice is necessary in this case because Peter is a very well-known and popular person, and it is important that the current malice is inserted in the case, to speed up the process.
4. The fair report privilege can be used to protect Rachel, since the false information about Peter that she exposed, had as its only source a public document that induced her to publish the defamation.
The answer you are looking for in CONFIDENTIALITY <span />
