Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing [W:150]

[MickeyW]

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

I posted this yesterday afternoon under Law and Order, because of the lawsuit.

 

[MickeyW]

$12M compensatory damages and $350k punitive? Well, it's good tax planning if you can get it. I'm not really sure that they can show $12M damages but maybe Couric will settle for a quarter mil each just to skip litigation. That was quite the butcher job she pulled.

Sure was.

Don't mind the lawsuit, but $12 million is kind of laughable.

Like selling anything, you ask high and can go down.....if you ask too low, you can't raise it.

 

[Absentglare]

your silly contrarian nonsense has no merit.

Sure it does, second amendment supporters support the second amendment at the expense of all others. We already knew this because they consider the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year from firearm usage to be acceptable losses, but it's so rarely articulated in such a brazen and undeniable manner.

 

[MickeyW]

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

Yep.....

 

[MickeyW]

You just quoted something saying that defamation requires intent. This is the burden of "actual malice" that the lawyer in the article i cited was discussing.

"Floyd Abrams, a legendary First Amendment lawyer, told CNNMoney that the gun rights group has a difficult case ahead of itself."

The "actual malice" burden requires either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...ournalists-legal-guide/defining-actual-malice

I don't think a dramatic pause qualifies as reckless disregard.

It's just flat out Deceitful and journalistic abuse! I hope they clean her clock!

 

[MickeyW]

Adding a dramatic pause doesn't change their argument. They're allowed to adjust timing, lighting, etc the display of the material. Without selectively editing the response itself, i think their case lacks merit.

Further, i think it's ironic for die hard 2A supporters to attempt to infringe on someone else's 1A rights.

Wrong is wrong....why do you have a problem with that? It is not an infringement on the 1st amendment in any way...when you lie, by whatever means...it's still a lie! The lawsuit is well grounded.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sure it does, second amendment supporters support the second amendment at the expense of all others. We already knew this because they consider the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year from firearm usage to be acceptable losses, but it's so rarely articulated in such a brazen and undeniable manner.

Firearm usage is never mentioned in the 2A. If one violates your rights (i.e. commits a crime) the 2A is never used as a defense. WTF are you talking about?

 

[Kal'Stang]

So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?

1st Amendment does not cover defamation, particularly when that defamation can cost money.

 

[MickeyW]

If someone is sued for defamation, it is the governments court system where that case is settled. That's why it would be considered government action that penalizes speech in this case.

Even if they can prove ill will, unless they published knowingly false statements or had reckless disregard for the truth, it doesn't qualify.

They didn't issue a knowingly false statement. If the only editing was to add a dramatic pause, that does not materially change the content of the argument:

"In the leading case governing journalists' use of quotations, Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue under its “substantial truth” doctrine, which allows minor inaccuracies to be ignored so long as the gist of the statement remains true. Accordingly, the deliberate alteration of a quotation does not render the statement false unless the alteration “results in a material change in the statement’s meaning.”"

How important is it to get a quote exactly right? | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

I see a reckless disregard of the Truth....to wit....an altered and falsified production.

that's really stupid. Free speech is involved if the government tries to punish you for what you say. If you defame someone and a private party SUES you, that is not a first amendment issue but one of TORT

Exactly.

Never mind. Repeatedly changing terminology to what you want to discuss isn't going to accomplish anything other than to verify your abhorrence of the truth when it doesn't suit you.

Not to mention he is anti-gun.

Your response is really stupid. The producers are exercising their first amendment rights. That's what these second amendment supporters are whining about, someone else exercising their rights. That's why it's hypocritical.

Nope...reckless disregard.....and you know ti!

What are you talking about

Defamation requires "actual malice". "Actual malice" requires either intentionally false statements that defame someone or reckless disregard for the truth in statements that defame someone.

Did you not realize that it's not defamation if it's reasonably accurate ?

Some of it is, and the part in question...IS NOT!

your silly contrarian nonsense has no merit.

I agree.

 

[MickeyW]

Firearm usage is never mentioned in the 2A. If one violates your rights (i.e. commits a crime) the 2A is never used as a defense. WTF are you talking about?

Anything he can grab as a lifeline, to keep from sinking. I think all his lifelines are used up and he has no friends left to call. :lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, I saw this example among others.

It is disingenuous of Ms. Couric and her producer to claim this pause was anything other than an attempt to make the panel seem like they had to think long and hard on an answer.

A clear case of distortion propaganda at it's best.

Much the same as the George Zimmerman edit (to save time?) to imply that he said out of he blue that Trayvon Martin was black when, in fact, that was in response to a direct police question about race (which was intentionally edited out).

If the documentary did this (added an 8 or 9 second pause for viewer reflection?) for all questions that were asked of supporters for both sides then maybe it would be believed. If, as alleged, it was done selectively (to make only gun rights supporters look slow or confused) then they may well lose in court.

 

[Absentglare]

Firearm usage is never mentioned in the 2A. If one violates your rights (i.e. commits a crime) the 2A is never used as a defense. WTF are you talking about?

What are YOU talking about ? Second amendment supporters often think that exercising 2A, bearing arms, should never be restricted even if the exercise thereof might impact other rights.

 

[Absentglare]

Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing

1st Amendment does not cover defamation, particularly when that defamation can cost money.

That's true, but my opinion is that a dramatic pause doesn't qualify as defamation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What are YOU talking about ? Second amendment supporters often think that exercising 2A, bearing arms, should never be restricted even if the exercise thereof might impact other rights.

The acts of keeping and bearing a gun do not impact any other rights. Just as the privilege of driving a car alone does not cause harm, the right to keep and carry a gun alone does not cause harm. Obviously, either cars or guns can be used by their operator to harm others at which point that harmful act can become a crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

What are YOU talking about ? Second amendment supporters often think that exercising 2A, bearing arms, should never be restricted even if the exercise thereof might impact other rights.

stop lying-what rights are impacted by the exercise of people KEEPING and BEARING ARMS.

 

[TurtleDude]

The acts of keeping and bearing a gun do not impact any other rights. Just as the privilege of driving a car alone does not cause harm, the right to keep and carry a gun alone does not cause harm. Obviously, either cars or guns can be used by their operator to harm others at which point that harmful act can become a crime.

some members of the BM or other leftwing haters of gun ownership think that they have a right not to be "upset" or incontinent or terrified from seeing others carrying a weapon. Their concept of rights is pathetic. Last night I listened to well known Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz talk about "comfort zones" and other idiocy at universities where coddled students claim they should not be subjected to views that they find disturbing. Dershowitz-hardly a conservative, noted that no such zones should exist and as long as there is not the threat of physical violence, students should not have any protection from views that upset them.

I agree and the same is true with keeping and bearing weapons. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to demand I not carry weapons because it causes you disruptive bowel disorder or you to feel intimidated. However if I THREATEN you with that weapon-either by insinuating I will shoot you or if I point the weapon in your direction, that goes BEYOND my RKBA and it does interfere with your rights and I can and should be prosecuted for menacing or aggravated assault.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's true, but my opinion is that a dramatic pause doesn't qualify as defamation.

the defamation comes from the pause being artificially created to make the pro rights advocates look as if they were unable to respond to the question-if you actually watched the hatchet job, the pro rights people were shown looking down as if the question flummoxed them and they were unable to respond-which was clearly inaccurate and depicted them in a false light

 

[jimbo]

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.

Cutie Katie needs to be drawn through a public trial and the negative publicity, then pay the 12 million out of her your own pocket right before she loses her job.

Is there anyone buying the argument that this was just an accident?

 

[Absentglare]

Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing

The acts of keeping and bearing a gun do not impact any other rights. Just as the privilege of driving a car alone does not cause harm, the right to keep and carry a gun alone does not cause harm. Obviously, either cars or guns can be used by their operator to harm others at which point that harmful act can become a crime.

I could just as well claim that my speech does not impact any other rights.

Of course, that is a ridiculously stupid argument. Even Scalia acknowledged that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. I wish second amendment supporters understood what they were saying instead of being blindly devoted to a laughably false narrative.

 

[ttwtt78640]

some members of the BM or other leftwing haters of gun ownership think that they have a right not to be "upset" or incontinent or terrified from seeing others carrying a weapon. Their concept of rights is pathetic. Last night I listened to well known Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz talk about "comfort zones" and other idiocy at universities where coddled students claim they should not be subjected to views that they find disturbing. Dershowitz-hardly a conservative, noted that no such zones should exist and as long as there is not the threat of physical violence, students should not have any protection from views that upset them.

I agree and the same is true with keeping and bearing weapons. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to demand I not carry weapons because it causes you disruptive bowel disorder or you to feel intimidated. However if I THREATEN you with that weapon-either by insinuating I will shoot you or if I point the weapon in your direction, that goes BEYOND my RKBA and it does interfere with your rights and I can and should be prosecuted for menacing or aggravated assault.

Exactly, evil does not lie within or emanate from a gun or any other tool used to commit a crime. Just as with making some recreational drugs illegal nationwide - those that want them and are willing to break the law will get them. It is odd that many of those opposed to lawful gun possession see illegal drug possession as no big deal. They simply place way too much faith in dependence on government - nobody but you can keep you safe.

 

[jimbo]

So you don't care about their rights to speech or property because of their position on guns ?

She has the right to her position on guns. What she doesn't have the right to is to edit others speech in her position as a so called journalist.

 

[Absentglare]

stop lying-what rights are impacted by the exercise of people KEEPING and BEARING ARMS.

I understand that you believe those who are indicted for beating their wives should not have their guns confiscated, and that the lives that are lost as a result are acceptable losses for the right to arm criminals.

the defamation comes from the pause being artificially created to make the pro rights advocates look as if they were unable to respond to the question-if you actually watched the hatchet job, the pro rights people were shown looking down as if the question flummoxed them and they were unable to respond-which was clearly inaccurate and depicted them in a false light

That depends on whether their arguments were included or not. If their arguments were included, then it does not matter. The gist of their argument is unchanged by pauses in time or space.

H e r e i s a n e x a m p l e .

 

[ttwtt78640]

I could just as well claim that my speech does not impact any other rights.

Of course, that is a ridiculously stupid argument. Even Scalia acknowledged that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. I wish second amendment supporters understood what they were saying instead of being blindly devoted to a laughably false narrative.

There are plenty enough, perhaps too many, limits on the 2A now. Let's make a deal, I will not press for limiting your rights and you do the same for me.

 

[jimbo]

Don't know who Dr, Ken is and don't care. If it were me and she tried to damage my credentials by editing a video to create a false narrative I would do the same thing. They can't lose. She apologizes and retracts the statement or she gives them money. Win/win. Why would they not do this? Is the suit dishonest?

I personally am sick of the do the damage, then apologize, and it's all better style of speech. Time to pony up.

She apologizes, pony up the bucks, and then life goes on.

 

[jimbo]

You just quoted something saying that defamation requires intent. This is the burden of "actual malice" that the lawyer in the article i cited was discussing.

"Floyd Abrams, a legendary First Amendment lawyer, told CNNMoney that the gun rights group has a difficult case ahead of itself."

The "actual malice" burden requires either intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...ournalists-legal-guide/defining-actual-malice

I don't think a dramatic pause qualifies as reckless disregard.

You don't think both happened here?