NBC sued over Trayvon tape

I wonder if he will win this lawsuit.This was deliberate on NBC's part to paint the man as a racist and thus damage his reputation.

George Zimmerman to sue NBC over editing of his 911 tape - NYPOST.com

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman is suing NBC over the network’s botched editing of his 911 tape, Page Six can exclusively reveal.
We hear Zimmerman’s attorneys are about to file a complaint against NBC and its top executives, naming news president Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen, who was the reporter on the scene for the broadcast on “Today” on March 27. He also remained the reporter for the story on “NBC Nightly News.”
A source tells us, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”
NBC launched an internal probe after producers misleadingly edited the 911 call placed by Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager. The edit made it appear that Zimmerman had immediately told police that Martin was black, when the full tape reveals the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher. Combined sections from two different parts of the tape gave the false impression that Zimmerman had said: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.”

Click to expand...

From the OP link
"An unidentified NBC executive previously told Reuters the “Today” show’s editorial control policies missed the selective editing of the call. It is not known if any other “Today” execs or anchors will be named in the suit. "

Yah think.

This is one example of why I take news stories with a grain of salt. This is why I take Youtube vids with a grain of salt. Seldom do they present the whole story.

I remember NBC after their internal investigation coming out and saying they were sorry. Too late, Damage done.

NBC messed up, can't deny that.

Not sure what George will do with the money behind bars for the rest of his life though.

I don't see that as a winnable suit. But IF he is found not-guilty, he has a hell of a suit against anyone who publicly said he is a "cold blooded murderer" or "murderer" with the "alleged" in front of it - unless said inside a courtroom or in Congress itself - both being protected speech.

So now you think M2 with a life sentence?

I agree, this suit may be a overboard to prove.
At least NBC admitted to the error.

joko104 said:

I don't see that as a winnable suit. But IF he is found not-guilty, he has a hell of a suit against anyone who publicly said he is a "cold blooded murderer" or "murderer" with the "alleged" in front of it - unless said inside a courtroom or in Congress itself - both being protected speech.

So now you think M2 with a life sentence?

Click to expand...

Why? Have we suddenly done away with freedom of speech?

sharon said:

Why? Have we suddenly done away with freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

Ah Sharon. interesting question.

I think the issue is go ahead and say what your want. Just remember there can be concequences to what is said.
We do have liable laws.

mike2810 said:

Ah Sharon. interesting question.

I think the issue is go ahead and say what your want. Just remember there can be concequences to what is said.
We do have liable laws.

Click to expand...

This is exactly correct.
Libel and slander laws exist specifically for situations like this.
NBC was wrong, they admittedly screw up, and should be held liable for their mistake.

Whether this is beneficial to Z is very questionable.
Unless the prosecution brings the recording to the trial is still unknown.
Doubtful that this lawsuit will be resolved in time to help Z in his case.
It does reek of profiteering by Z, though.....

sharon said:

Why? Have we suddenly done away with freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

Your statement is legally 100% wrong. Publicly stating or publishing that someone committed a crime is legally called slander per se and has never been allowed as freedom of speech. It also is the exception regarding public figures. That's why the media and press always puts "accused" or "alleged" in such articles. In their fury to engage in race-baiting, many did not do so, opening themselves for a lawsuit.

As example, if I publish (ie publicly declare in writing or orally) that you are a "rotten, despicable person," that is just "opinion" and not actionable. If I accused you of adultery, that may be liable as slander/libel, BUT if you are a public figure I am mostly protected from a lawsuit and even if not and if you win, you still have to prove actual damage. But if I said you are "rapist," unless you were convicted of rape my statement is presumed deliberately malcious and the burden proof would be on me to prove that statement is true. If I can not, you are entitled to actual damages AND punitive damages.

Of course, each state may have different laws. That it the age-old standard and is still.

Even if GZ is declared a "pubic figure" - which allow protection against libel and slander - that does not provide protection against libel per se and slander per se. That means "libelous/slanderous on its face." It is one of the few examples where if it shown the Defendant made the statement, the burden of proof then shifts to the Defendant to prove the accusation is true. There are exemptions for statements in a courtroom, within actual legal activities (like depositions or talking to the police in private) and in government such as before committees and boards.

If one person publicly declares another person committed a crime, it is presumed to be malicious and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the claim. It has always been so.

In the past, character assasination ethically was considered the same as violent assault and murder given the importance of a person's reputation.

I hope NBC gets in trouble. They certainly deserve it.

sharon said:

Why? Have we suddenly done away with freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

We have not eliminated free speech at all.
You can say what you want, but if you libel or slander another person, there are fair legal repercussions.
In these situations, the burden of proof is a Preponderance of the Evidence - the greater weight of the evidence presented to win.
It makes sense - If I scream to everyone I see on the street that you sell crack cocaine to little children, and it is a lie, then you should have legal recourse to stop me.
Freedom of speech does not allow me to lie about you publicly, which is fair.

If, however, you were a crack dealer who had been convicted of selling drugs to children, then my speech is OK.
Truth is the ultimate recourse to libel and slander - if the speech is true, then I am within my rights.

jamesrage said:

I wonder if he will win this lawsuit.This was deliberate on NBC's part to paint the man as a racist and thus damage his reputation.

Click to expand...

Whatever happens to GZ at trial, I hope he wins millions from this lawsuit. It's long-past time for this **** to stop.

SMTA said:

This is exactly correct.
Libel and slander laws exist specifically for situations like this.
NBC was wrong, they admittedly screw up, and should be held liable for their mistake.

Whether this is beneficial to Z is very questionable.
Unless the prosecution brings the recording to the trial is still unknown.
Doubtful that this lawsuit will be resolved in time to help Z in his case.
It does reek of profiteering by Z, though.....

Click to expand...

Mans got to eat, he aint got a job and I dont think anyone gona give him one either.

MaggieD said:

Whatever happens to GZ at trial, I hope he wins millions from this lawsuit. It's long-past time for this **** to stop.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

For the life of me I can't even figure out how this case hasn't been thrown out yet.

Charges wouldn't have even been filed if race wasn't a factor. It reeks of the same nonsense as the Duke lacrosse fiasco.

PirateMk1 said:

Mans got to eat, he aint got a job and I dont think anyone gona give him one either.

Click to expand...

Not unless someone is ready to completely destroy their business.....

i believe this may be a shot across the bow of national media
to cause it to think twice about shilling for the prosecution

I would like to see lawsuits against EVERY personality and media person who said Trayvon Martin is "a murderer." That is liable per se - meaning libel on it's face and presumed malicious.

The aspect of the altered tape making it interesting is that even if Zimmerman IS a murderer, that does NOT mean he is a bigot as they altered the tape to falsely portray.

A. Freedom of Speech means that the government will pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not mean your wife, your boss, your neighbor, anyone cannot exact a price for what you chose to say.

B. Truth is not an absolute defense from slander or libel. It a statement maliciously damages a person's reputation you can still be sued and found liable.

Patrickt said:

B. Truth is not an absolute defense from slander or libel. It a statement maliciously damages a person's reputation you can still be sued and found liable.

Click to expand...

You obviously have never studied any law, as this statement is completely false. Google is also your friend.

Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

Click to expand...

I wish there were such a thing as journalist malpractice. There is in engineering(yes, there is such a thing), medicine, law and other important areas of life.

I think it would be only fitting that journalists get malpractice legislature too.

SMTA said:

You obviously have never studied any law, as this statement is completely false. Google is also your friend.

Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

Click to expand...

Google is your friend and I have studied law although I'm not a lawyer. My interests were more in criminal law but I had some civil law classes.

Johnson v. Johnson, 654 A.2d 1212 (R.I. 1995).
Result: The compensatory damages award was upheld, on the theory that reputation-injuring but true statements on matters of private concern could still be actionable if said out of "malicious motives." The punitive damages award, however, was rejected, because in this case "defendant was the victim of a long course of reprehensible behavior committed against him by plaintiff."

Patrickt said:

Google is your friend and I have studied law although I'm not a lawyer. My interests were more in criminal law but I had some civil law classes.

Johnson v. Johnson, 654 A.2d 1212 (R.I. 1995).
Result: The compensatory damages award was upheld, on the theory that reputation-injuring but true statements on matters of private concern could still be actionable if said out of "malicious motives." The punitive damages award, however, was rejected, because in this case "defendant was the victim of a long course of reprehensible behavior committed against him by plaintiff."

Click to expand...

My statement is correct as stated - truth is a complete defense.
In the case you indicate, there were extenuating circumstances based on a duration situation that obviously ended up being harassment.