WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.
The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to ”intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”
The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
Nothing was misrepresented. He said all the things.
He didn’t however explicitly instruct an armed assault on the Capitol, which is what the edit depicted.
If you give the benefit of the doubt to a obvious practicing pedophile don’t be surprised when your children get fucked.
AKA there would not have been an armed assault without him, but he didn’t “order it”? I can’t even with this level of stupidity.
Did you see the edit in question? If that’s not misrepresentation, I don’t know what is.
Would it be OK if you gave a 10-minute speech and I sliced and diced the words as I saw fit? This was pretty fucking egregious.
That day tore me up, and I watched it roll on for almost 8-hours. Not sure it’s PTSD, but I still have loads of similar symptoms for 01/16. Still can’t see pics or video of it. But that speech didn’t happen like that.
No idea about British law, but I can’t imagine Trump demonstrating actual harm out of this.
@shalafi @Diddlydee did you see the programme in question, though? I mean, none of us can, now, and I didn’t see it at the time. But it’s one very small clip in the context of a much longer programme, so surely the whole context would be relevant here. Was the *programme* misrepresenting him? Not just this clip, a few seconds long.
@shalafi @Diddlydee NB in British law he’d have had a much better chance because if someone claims defamation, the statement in question is presumed false unless the person/org who made it can prove it is true. Which is an incredibly high bar in a lot of circumstances and leads to people being very careful with their words - and is also why this whole situation is really strange from the outset as the BBC have to be pretty hot on this kind of thing.
Unfair trade practices?
Trumpet is going to hold up trade deals now. Just to be petulant. Starmer is going to have a quiet word in the BBC’s ear.
FWIW I don’t think we should be ‘building closer trade ties’ with the US right now anyway.
There you go 😂.
And yes I agree. I don’t think we should either. But sadly this isn’t how the British government thinks. We’d be far better aligning with European interests and slowly extricating ourselves from US interference.
Starmer can say what he likes, but any settlement will come from taxpayers. I can’t imagine there is any public support for giving money to Trump for some imagined slight.
Yes but put yourself in the spineless shoes of Starmer. Ten billion from the public via the BBC in exchange for much more lucrative trade deals. Net win.
This is how these people think.
I think you mean ten billiong from the public via the BBC in exchange for literally nothing because the man is a master of folding while getting nothing in return.
Unfortunately no. Licence fee is not technically a tax. More importantly many Brits are not paying it now as they just do not bother with live TV.
As such the likely hood is. And case will bankrupt and extinguish the BBC.
Technically it’s a hypothecated tax.
I have a new word!
