Legal experts say former U.S. President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC could face major challenges in court, as questions mount over the legal grounds and jurisdiction of the case. The lawsuit, reportedly targeting allegations of bias and defamation, comes amid growing tensions between the Trump campaign and several major media outlets.
According to legal analyst Professor Jonathan Marks, the case may struggle to move forward under existing U.S. and UK defamation laws, both of which have stringent standards for public figures. “Trump will need to prove not only that the BBC acted with actual malice, but also that the statements made were demonstrably false and caused measurable harm,” Marks explained.
00:00In lay terms, Mr. Trump appears to say that there are certain aspects of the speech that were edited in a way that doesn't represent what he said, in that the BBC has implied that he had asked for the viewers to join him in a call for violence,
00:27whereas his position was that he didn't say that. And that impression was given because the speeches that he had given were edited by the BBC.
00:39We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down. Anyone you want. But I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol.
00:49And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
01:03Mr. Trump says that this speech and the editing of it has caused him.
01:20Significant reputational and financial harm. On an objective view for a politician, the harm would be assessed by that politician's success in an election.
01:34The speech was published by the BBC prior to the last US elections. In the event, Mr. Trump did succeed in that election.
01:52So it would be difficult for Mr. Trump to establish a case for harm when he won that election.
02:22It would be far easier to pursue an English defendant in the English courts, but English law requires a claim to be brought within a one year period from the time the statement was first published.
02:48First, the statement that Mr. Trump is complaining about is outside of a one year window.
02:57Florida law provides for a longer period in which a party can bring suit.
03:03In addition, English law is quite restrictive in the amount of damages that a party can claim.
03:11Whereas the damages that Mr. Trump has sought to recover in the US action are significantly higher than what he would expect to receive in England.
03:41And the actual malice test is a test that public figures like Mr. Trump will need to meet in the US.
03:55And he will need to establish that the BBC either knew that the edit was false, or he will need to show that the BBC was reckless as to the truth.
04:03And they're very difficult tests for public figures to satisfy.
04:09Well, I mean, the BBC is a public institution, so obviously there is an overlay that doesn't otherwise attract private publishers, but is a consideration for the BBC.
04:34And they will need to weigh whether the cost of litigating this justifies the public money that will go towards it, or whether it's better to resolve the dispute.
04:46What they have done, which was prompt, was publicly acknowledge that there was an error of judgment.
04:54And that goes a long distance in respect of mitigating the harm that they have been alleged to have caused.
05:04In terms of the BBC's response, I suspect they will want to wait till they see the complaint in full, which sets out more details of how the $1 billion figure was calculated, before they make a proactive offer of compensation.
05:22The present case shows you that any state broadcaster is fair game, because if the BBC can be dragged to Florida, there's nothing to stop other broadcasters from being dragged there.
Be the first to comment