The bbc, again.

[chris123]

Trump v BBC update

Relatives are allowed to be served subpoenas by mail (as personal service blocked by secret service)

Trump has personally sought to dodge deposition by him on discovery.

If he continues to do so, there is precedent for a case to be dismissed.

Given this case was only about political theatre and strong arming a media outlet that did not broadcast the Gospel according to Trump but never had a scintilla of merit, perhaps Trump would be better off getting his case thrown out and then seeking to make capital out of the establishment out to get him.

His seriously dim base will swallow this whole and ignore any counter view... such as Trump is the plaintiff and he chose to bring this specious claim in this court.

Anything that touches the US mail system and the FCPA kicks in. I think it might be the only bit of Jimmy Carter legislatiom still on the statute book.

 

[silvertop]

I don't think it's was just political theatre. As the BBC actually did wrong by editing the video to make it look like Trump said somthing where he didint. Didn't they admit the wrong and apologise already?

It's a more a go after them as far as you can and make an example so others don't try it in the future and the BBC would think twice about doing it again. Realistically I don't think anyone expected the case to go far forward?

In my opinion.....

Apologizing for poor journalism is a million leagues away from committing defamation in a legal matrix where malice is required to prove defamation. A very high evidential burden where Trump was always miles short as there never was any.

Issuing court proceedings for the true purpose of suppressing media to discourage this and/or because its product is not to your liking is an improper use of the court and must be struck out as an abuse of process. I think it will be.

Nobody thought the case would take this long as they were acting on recent precedents where the US Networks were sued. They paid out cheaply so their litigation-averse Boards could avoid the wasteful cost of defending what were actually useless claims. They are known as "nuisance payments".

What Brain Cell Trump failed to factor was that the BBC cannot do that. They can only pay out what is all but British taxpayer's money if legal advice supports it. If the case is bogus, as in this case, they must defend.

 

[eaglesdare]

Apologizing for poor journalism is a million leagues away from committing defamation in a legal matrix where malice is required to prove defamation. A very high evidential burden where Trump was always miles short as there never was any.

Issuing court proceedings for the true purpose of suppressing media to discourage this and/or because its product is not to your liking is an improper use of the court and must be struck out as an abuse of process. I think it will be.

Nobody thought the case would take this long as they were acting on recent precedents where the US Networks were sued. They paid out cheaply so their litigation-averse Boards could avoid the wasteful cost of defending what were actually useless claims. They are known as "nuisance payments".

What Brain Cell Trump failed to factor was that the BBC cannot do that. They can only pay out what is all but British taxpayer's money if legal advice supports it. If the case is bogus, as in this case, they must defend.

But I do think journalists and the media should be held accountable for lies and for editing speeches / videos to show somthing different. And if the legal precedings puts off other media and journalists from making up and editing what the BBC did then good. Whether it be GB news, the BBC, Fox or channel 4. If it's suppressing media from actually reporting the news and the truth then I agree but not when they edit a speech like they did.

It's not a product to ones liking in this case. The BBC actually edited / doctored a speech. They have admitted it was wrong.

If GB news (although not tax payer funded) did an Andy burnham video edit in a way the BBC did for Trump what then do you think the outcry would be?

 

[silvertop]

But I do think journalists and the media should be held accountable for lies and for editing speeches / videos to show somthing different. And if the legal precedings puts off other media and journalists from making up and editing what the BBC did then good. Whether it be GB news, the BBC, Fox or channel 4. If it's suppressing media from actually reporting the news and the truth then I agree but not when they edit a speech like they did.

It's not a product to ones liking in this case. The BBC actually edited / doctored a speech. They have admitted it was wrong.

If GB news (although not tax payer funded) did an Andy burnham video edit in a way the BBC did for Trump what then do you think the outcry would be?

I agree with most of this. But

There was an apology and heads rolled. The BBC did not escape Scot free.

If there were journalistic rules where a fine was imposed for code breaches I would have little problem with that as long as such fines were fair and were imposed consistently accross the media spectrum.

I have a problem with Trump forum shopping for the most favourable court and suing for a remedy he knows he can't achieve for improper purposes.

 

[eaglesdare]

I agree with most of this. But

There was an apology and heads rolled. The BBC did not escape Scot free.

If there were journalistic rules where a fine was imposed for code breaches I would have little problem with that as long as such fines were fair and were imposed consistently accross the media spectrum.

I have a problem with Trump forum shopping for the most favourable court and suing for a remedy he knows he can't achieve for improper purposes.

That's fair and I can agree with your post.