Trump to sue BBC for $5bn (£3.7bn)

Agree Trump and truth parted company a long time ago. Apparently USA is attacking Nigeria now….with the Nigerian government’s approval. Only heard it briefly.
Does he want to be king of the world? Possibly. The man and men like him, we know who they are, are all a danger to us all.

Agree- its a well known fact that Trump and the truth have never enjoyed a particularly close relationship....

Smileless2012

I agree LemonJam. The only one trying to manipulate the truth is Trump.

If Freya's 'Black Belt Barrister is arguing that Trump can take the BBC to the cleaners for an editing 'error' when Trump's claim seems to be one of defamation and loss of reputation then S/He seem to be manipulating the truth, too.

I agree LemonJam. The only one trying to manipulate the truth is Trump.

Think you are correct LemonJam.

Freya5- I agree to differ. An apology for an editing error does not provide Trump with sufficient evidence, in my view, for his claim to succeed.

LemonJam

I agree the BBC should defend it fully. The BBC has a strong case so I hope it does defend and not seek to settle.

As the BBC wrote an "apology letter", stating that they had in fact deliberately edited the film, I think they have not got a leg to stand on.
Any compensation should come out of their extortionate salary, rather than our licence fee money. Of course that won't happen, and fee payers will foot the bill.
This is what happens when left wing journos try to manipulate the truth. Black Belt Barrister did a programme on exactly this.

I hope the greedy man gets nothing! He did incite violence. He should be in shackles. If he is in America is it legally binding what they decide. Can't BBC just ignore him. As you can see I know nothing of laws between two countries but this seems ridiculous.

He tried to get the result of the election overturned by asking for votes to ‘be found’. Nothing he has ever said or done since has made me think that he wasn’t supporting the people who stormed the White House. If any other sitting president had lost an election that would never have happened.

I believe it was the same long speech,, not two different speeches an hour apart.

Sadgrandma

The BBC did edit two of Trump’s speeches, made an hour apart, to give the impression that he encouraged
his followers to march to Capitol Hill and fight which I guess they shouldn’t have done. However, this was after the event and I think his actual speeches did give that impression anyway. Once the riots started he should have immediately stepped in and told them to stop but he didn’t which was tantamount to encouraging them. Hopefully he won’t have a leg to stand on with this case but the BBC does need to be very careful to ensure that they only publish factual news.

There have been legal findings in civil or constitutional contexts that say his actions amounted to incitement or engaged insurrection under certain standards.

A Colorado state judge (Denver District Court) ruled in November 2023 that Trump did incite an insurrection on January 6, 2021 under the state court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment (disqualification clause) because he “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence.

Sorry I stand corrected

Your understanding is correct silverlining48.

Also we don't "know" why the employee did this. Guesswork and opinion are not what a court if law will use It certainly wasn't BBC policy. However, the individual producer responsible for the specific edit has not been publicly named in the context of any disciplinary action.

The BBC issued a formal apology to President Trump, acknowledging that the edit "unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech" and gave the "mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action".

Also:

The BBC announced it had no plans to rebroadcast the episode in that form.

Those are the facts known so far.

Its my understanding that it was the same long speech, not two separate speeches.

The BBC did edit two of Trump’s speeches, made an hour apart, to give the impression that he encouraged
his followers to march to Capitol Hill and fight which I guess they shouldn’t have done. However, this was after the event and I think his actual speeches did give that impression anyway. Once the riots started he should have immediately stepped in and told them to stop but he didn’t which was tantamount to encouraging them. Hopefully he won’t have a leg to stand on with this case but the BBC does need to be very careful to ensure that they only publish factual news.

Petra, that was hysterical. Thank you.

I hope this link works. Soooo funny.

www.facebook.com/reel/1330189882244201

It is strange DaisyAR, but that is how some GNs feel.

You make some valid points DAR. I agree, he is an enemy of democracy. I hope the BBC utilises SLAPP.

One thing I don't understand is why people are so keen that they, themselves, are sued by Trump? Because that is what he is doing. The BBC belongs to our country. If Trump found a jurisdiction where he could win this mendacious case the State, therefore taxpayers, would pay.

The BBC has broken no laws in the USA and he would not be able to prove that the programme being played here did him any damage. And yet some are prepared to pay the man who has basically declared war on democracy, by weaponising trade and has already bombed us, using "unfriendly" action. Why do these people support someone who has declared himself our enemy, our allies enemy and the enemy of democracy?

It has been called out and dealt with Namsnanny.

It's interesting that the case is in Miami where SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws exist. A case falling under this law is a baseless or abusive lawsuit, often defamation, used by powerful entities (corporations, wealthy individuals) to silence critics, journalists, or activists by overwhelming them with costly legal battles, rather than seeking justice on the merits of the case. The goal is to intimidate, harass, and financially drain opponents, deterring them and others from speaking out on public interest issues like corruption or environmental harm.

It looks as if it's Pulitzer's intention to show the case against them is just this. I imagine the BBC may well take the same route.

Oh no, he might win. He has Liz Truss on his side.

Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on. His Miami court has no jurisdiction here and they can't extradite the BBC.

To misquote the Duke of Wellington, Trump can sue and be damned.

The edited speech did not say the opposite. I also listened to the full 60 minute plus speech and came to the view Trump incited the riot. As did many other media outlets. If you listen to the long speech and do not form that view you will accept that he did not stop the riot, then or at any stage.

Further the documentary, which I also saw, was balanced in that it featured Trump supporters giving their views as well as detractors. It can not be said that it was a malicious, defamatory broadcast in any shape or form as Trump claims.

Further Trump was impeached in his own country and the speech was used in the US court as evidence at the time by both parties. Earlier this year Trump also pardoned 1, 500 Capitol rioters, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers- what do you make of that in context? at the very least it suggests Trump continues to condoned their actions.

Agreed IOMGran.