Trump's defamation suit against the media backfires

[andy06shake]

I'm afraid that your numerous transgressions leave us no option than to have you detained indefinitely in an Attitude Adjustment Facility. 

It's for your own good, citizen.....

As long as they do sexy green M&Ms and have IPTV im in. 

[andy06shake]

"Vegetable Rights and peace, man..."

[Oldcarpy2]

As long as they do sexy green M&Ms and have IPTV im in. 

The electro shock therapies will cure you of those addictions, citizen....

[Oldcarpy2]

Legal Claims and Allegations The lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court in December 2025, accuses the BBC of:  

• Defamation: Claiming the BBC intentionally manipulated footage to harm Trump's reputation and portray him as inciting the Capitol riot.
  
• Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices: Alleging the broadcaster used its platform to "interfere in and influence" the 2024 U.S. election.
  
• Deceptive Editing: The lawsuit states the BBC spliced together two parts of his speech that were delivered nearly 50 to 54 minutes apart. Specifically, it combined his call to "walk down to the Capitol" with his later comment to "fight like hell," while omitting his instruction to protest "peacefully and patriotically". 
  

•  
  

 BBC Response and Consequences While the BBC has not admitted to a crime, it has acknowledged a significant "editorial breach" and an "error of judgment".  

• Resignations: The scandal led to the immediate resignations of the BBC's Director-General, Tim Davie, and the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, in November 2025.
  
• Apology: BBC Chair Samir Shah issued a personal apology to Trump, admitting the edit gave the "mistaken impression" of a direct call for violence.
  
• Refusal of Compensation: Despite the apology, the BBC has rejected Trump's demand for financial compensation, stating they do not believe there is a legal basis for a defamation claim. 
  

•  
  

 Legal Context Under U.S. law, public figures must meet the "actual malice" standard to win a defamation case, proving the defendant knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The case follows a similar recent settlement where Paramount (CBS) paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit regarding the editing of a Kamala Harris interview.

Donald Trump sues BBC over misleading video editing of speech ...

It's a civil law suit.

Not a criminal prosecution.

Good luck.

[andy06shake]

It's a civil law suit.

Not a criminal prosecution.

Good luck.

My understanding being you cannot win a civil defamation case, even in the US, just by showing a statement is false or harmful.

And as far as im aware, the high bar is there to protect criticism, mistakes, and unpopular opinions.

It's how Trump manages to get away with some of his own shenanigans.

[BeTheGoddess]

"Vegetable Rights and peace, man..."

"Rick sewed me, nature grew me, and here I am."

Such a tragic end to drive off a cliff.

RIP Rick, Vivian, Neil and Mike.

[Oldcarpy2]

My understanding too.

He's just counting on the BBC being intimidated into offering him loads of money.

Let's hope they stick to their guns.

Who is his legal team now?

He's gotten through quite a few.

[BeTheGoddess]

Legal Claims and Allegations The lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court in December 2025, accuses the BBC of:  

• Defamation: Claiming the BBC intentionally manipulated footage to harm Trump's reputation and portray him as inciting the Capitol riot.
  
• Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices: Alleging the broadcaster used its platform to "interfere in and influence" the 2024 U.S. election.
  
• Deceptive Editing: The lawsuit states the BBC spliced together two parts of his speech that were delivered nearly 50 to 54 minutes apart. Specifically, it combined his call to "walk down to the Capitol" with his later comment to "fight like hell," while omitting his instruction to protest "peacefully and patriotically". 
  

•  
  

 BBC Response and Consequences While the BBC has not admitted to a crime, it has acknowledged a significant "editorial breach" and an "error of judgment".  

• Resignations: The scandal led to the immediate resignations of the BBC's Director-General, Tim Davie, and the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, in November 2025.
  
• Apology: BBC Chair Samir Shah issued a personal apology to Trump, admitting the edit gave the "mistaken impression" of a direct call for violence.
  
• Refusal of Compensation: Despite the apology, the BBC has rejected Trump's demand for financial compensation, stating they do not believe there is a legal basis for a defamation claim. 
  

•  
  

 Legal Context Under U.S. law, public figures must meet the "actual malice" standard to win a defamation case, proving the defendant knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The case follows a similar recent settlement where Paramount (CBS) paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit regarding the editing of a Kamala Harris interview.

Donald Trump sues BBC over misleading video editing of speech ...

But they are going after the BBC in UK jurisdiction?, "actual malice" wont carry in the UK.

[Oldcarpy2]

But they are going after the BBC in UK jurisdiction?, "actual malice" wont carry in the UK.

It's in a Florida Court, I believe.

If it was a UK Court:

Judge:  "May I see a copy of your Practicing Certificate?  As if you have one..."

[BeTheGoddess]

It's in a Florida Court, I believe.

If it was a UK Court:

Judge:  "May I see a copy of your Practicing Certificate?  As if you have one..."

Wyoming you didnt need any formal qualification, if you could fill out the form and afford the $150 fee, you're qualified..  Maybe that has changed, they might have a functuinal web form... 

Heck, corporate lawyers from most places in the world have exemptions to practice in NYC.