In a not entirely surprising twist Trump is now saying he’ll sue the BBC for up to $5 billion. Trump says he was defamed by a somewhat iffy BBC edit of “Trump A Second Chance?” on the long-running BBC show Panorama.
The BBC has apologized but doesn’t agree with the defamation argument. Trump says the BBC is “fake news,” a term he basically coined for any and all negative press. Not much has changed.
Note: It’s unclear whether any actual formal proceedings are currently in place.
Whether or not UK law will entertain Trump’s idea of defamation is another matter. The highly litigious US is a very different legal environment to the UK. At least it’s supposed to be. The issue is what constitutes defamation and what isn’t, edits aside.
Let’s leave out the legal arguments. There is another issue here that isn’t getting much attention. The right to sue, rightly or wrongly, is not in question.
The question of such high punitive damages, however, is very much an issue that may haunt global media for decades to come.
Important: Note that a court may award damages as it sees fit, not necessarily the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Claims for damages are usually subject to intense dispute.
Can such litigation be simply thrown out by the court?
Yes, it can.
Will such a high-profile case be simply thrown out?
Very probably not.
The case would have to be heard in full, even “on principle.”
There’s an important possible legal precedent that could well affect global media.
The high-stakes damages are very much part of the bigger picture.
If this case is successful and becomes an instant legal precedent, what follows?
Where do you draw the line, let alone make the distinction, between simple reportage and someone’s personal interpretation of the same reportage?
Expect fireworks if this case proceeds.
__________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
