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?