Trump's defamation suit against the media backfires

[Moon68]

Cheers, mate.  It's mutual

Cheers back at you buddy. I think these chaffing sessions are what keeps us old farts spry.

On topic, it's been well established that when a news reporting agency selectively edits a story that it quickly becomes salacious, libelous and defamatory.

Sandmann V CNN

Deadspin are idiots

[FlyersFan]

I just hope the BBC holds their ground.

These bullying tactics is how Trump has gotten as far as he has.

So you are just fine with the press selectively editing a speech by a politician to make it look like they said something that they didn't .... yeah .... dishonesty and agenda are just fine as long as it goes along the lines of your own political beliefs, right?

[Oldcarpy2]

Yes he is thin skinned and litigious.
(and he's a total ass)
But his BBC lawsuit has merit.

The BBC claims they made an 'unintentional error' in editing.
That's absurd.   It was obviously on purpose and with an agenda.

I'm surprised you are okay with the media lying to you and 
manipulating the information to socially engineer you.
Or is this a national pride thing because the BBC is British and 
anti-Trump so you side with them?

It wasn't actually broadcast in the US....

[Oldcarpy2]

Cheers back at you buddy. I think these chaffing sessions are what keeps us old farts spry.

On topic, it's been well established that when a news reporting agency selectively edits a story that it quickly becomes salacious, libelous and defamatory.

Sandmann V CNN

Deadspin are idiots

Even if the BBC didn't broadcast it it the US?

[Oldcarpy2]

Yes he is thin skinned and litigious.
(and he's a total ass)
But his BBC lawsuit has merit.

The BBC claims they made an 'unintentional error' in editing.
That's absurd.   It was obviously on purpose and with an agenda.

I'm surprised you are okay with the media lying to you and 
manipulating the information to socially engineer you.
Or is this a national pride thing because the BBC is British and 
anti-Trump so you side with them?

Nah.  It's the lawyer in me speaking.

As for lying to you, that happens whenever Trump opens his gob. to

[Moon68]

Even if the BBC didn't broadcast it it the US?

Does a National politician have global reach?

For that matter, it should matter less WHO was defamed if a supposed trusted news source did the defaming.

Difference in reporting the news and creating the news based a false premise.

[Tecate]

Meh, his bruises look to me as he is on blood thinners. He has some clotting issues. 
Petechiae is what it looks like to me. He is being treated for something and he doesn’t have the stamina that he used to. 

What he’s being treated for? I don’t know, but I’ve seen that bruising many times before. He’s a senior and we start to fall apart as we age.

He is a thin skinned, pre-teen in an old man’s body who hires the lamest meatheads (no pun intended), to surround himself. But I believe that he does in fact have something seriously wrong with him medically.

Meh, my 2 pesos…

Tecate

[Oldcarpy2]

Does a National politician have global reach?

For that matter, it should matter less WHO was defamed if a supposed trusted news source did the defaming.

Difference in reporting the news and creating the news based a false premise.

Yes.  But to prove a defamation claim involves legal hurdles.

Like if brought in the US Courts, they need jurisdiction?  Bit of a problem if not broadcast their.

Could have sued in the UK, but his lawyers missed the one year limitation deadline.

Maybe he'll sue his negligent legal team next?

[FlyersFan]

It wasn't actually broadcast in the US....

Doesn't matter.
It was still a lie.
And being POTUS he has to deal with governments and people overseas.
So it affects his presidency.

and you don't care that they lied to you and tried to socially engineer you?

[Oldcarpy2]

Doesn't matter.
It was still a lie.
And being POTUS he has to deal with governments and people overseas.
So it affects his presidency.

and you don't care that they lied to you and tried to socially engineer you?

Nope.  The law is the law and jurisdiction issues don't involve "feelz".

If I was representing the BBC I would rely on Arkell v Pressdram.

"Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) is a famous legal anecdote in the UK, originating from a libel threat by retail credit manager James Arkell to Private Eye magazine; when Arkell's lawyers demanded their reply dictate damages, Private Eye responded with a vulgar, succinct dismissal, leading Arkell to drop the threat, establishing a legendary shorthand for dismissing frivolous legal action with the phrase, "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram". The Incident
 The Article: Private Eye, a satirical magazine, published allegations about James Arkell receiving kickbacks from bailiffs, detailing illicit payments related to his job at Granada TV Rental.The Threat: Arkell's solicitors sent a letter threatening libel action, stating damages would depend on the magazine's response.Private Eye's Reply: Instead of a detailed defense, the magazine replied curtly, acknowledging the letter and then essentially saying "f*** off," making the point that their reply was itself the ultimate response to the damages claim. 
 The LegacyLegal Anecdote: The case never went to court but became legendary among lawyers and journalists as a masterclass in handling legal threats with wit.The Phrase: "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram" became a classic way to dismiss a potential lawsuit by implying the subject matter was so absurd or their position so strong that no further explanation was needed.
 Cultural Reference: It's a well-known story symbolizing defiance against overly serious or potentially baseless legal challenges, often used in T-shirts and discussions about free speech. "