- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This is going to be an interesting case.The anti gun twit is being sued for defamation based on her dishonest editing of her selective editing of the responses of pro gun activists in her anti gun film "under the Gun" which was supported by several bannerrhoid organizations
Katie Couric & Epix Sued For $12M Over Anti-Gun Film Editing | Deadline
This is going to be an interesting case.
Apparently, the defamatory editing is: Adding a pause, when asking the panel if there's a reason to not have background checks.
The producer claims the pause was added for drama and reflection, and appears to be claiming artistic license:
"My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks,” said the director on May 25 with support from Epix. “I never intended to make anyone look bad, and I apologize if anyone felt that way."
The plaintiffs claim:
“The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks,” the heavily visual 52-page filing claims. “The Defendants’ actions were malicious, willful, and wanton, and evidence a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs,” it adds.
I have no idea if an 8 second pause is substantively defamatory, but I'd like to see that footage.
Do you have it by chance, Turtle?
You very well may be right.no, but I watched the entire film-admittedly hostile to the views of Couric and her bannerrhoid allies-and it was obvious the pause was designed to make the pro freedom advocates look flummoxed or dazed and confused.
she's a hard core anti gun hack and given her track record, she is not entitled (at least in my view and that of many pro-rights advocates) of any benefit of doubt. The support for her schlockumentary was a who's who list of bannerrhoid groups.
"Seek, and ye shall find"!
You very well may be right.
But after seeing it, I'm not sure if they got a winning case regardless of personal intent - unless the intent can be shown.
If the defendants show this technique is commonly used by other producers without malice (I believe it is), the plaintiffs might have a tough case.
I suspect LutherF is right, in that ordinarily there'd be a small settlement at best.
But if the plaintiffs are trying to make a political stand or are backed by political orgs, who knows? They may insist on dragging Curic et al through the negative publicity of a trial.
Don't mind the lawsuit, but $12 million is kind of laughable.
I think I'd agree, and I'd add that a possibly weak suit - is still a suit that *possibly* can be lost or expose one to further liability!probably the real goal is discovery-to subject Katie Couric to a withering deposition and then release some parts of that to make her look like a lying anti gun POS. her desire to settle most likely will be to avoid that and the real, if somewhat remote, threat of her committing perjury. For example if she denies she edited her hatchet job to make pro rights advocates look like dolts, and someone who was working with her and decides to rat her out comes forward and says "Yes we did that to make them look bad" she could get nailed for perjury because testimony in a deposition is basically under the same solemnity as that in court
My suspicion is there's more than mere dollars desired here.shoot for a high number and settle for a lower one
My suspicion is there's more than mere dollars desired here.
I was thinking along those lines, or as Turtle stated: to embarrass and discredit her through discovery or otherwise.retraction and apology?
The anti gun twit is being sued for defamation based on her dishonest editing of her selective editing of the responses of pro gun activists in her anti gun film "under the Gun" which was supported by several bannerrhoid organizations
Katie Couric & Epix Sued For $12M Over Anti-Gun Film Editing | Deadline
So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?
The anti gun twit is being sued for defamation based on her dishonest editing of her selective editing of the responses of pro gun activists in her anti gun film "under the Gun" which was supported by several bannerrhoid organizations
Katie Couric & Epix Sued For $12M Over Anti-Gun Film Editing | Deadline
Here's the part you always get wrong: Their speech rights end at libel and slander. Their loss if property is a possible result of such.So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?
How is the government trying to restrict their free speech rights?So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?
Who's rights to free speech? The gun rights advocates or Couric's?
Here's the part you always get wrong: Their speech rights end at libel and slander. Their loss if property is a possible result of such.
How is the government trying to restrict their free speech rights?
Couric isn't allowed to add a dramatic pause ?
Not if it is libel or slander. She created an incident that was a total fabrication that could damage these people professionally. She took footage from a time before they started the discussion and moved it to create a perception that was totally false. The law doesn't allow for that if it misrepresents the situation in such a way that it damages someone.
Then do you think Dr. Ken can sue the production of The Hangover for defamation over his nude scene ?
I don't see how it was "totally false" to add a dramatic pause. And i don't see how that defames their character. Perhaps they should explain their anti-UBC argument if they have one.
Or they should drop the charges from $12M to something halfway reasonable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?