A comprehensive framework of actual malice

Florida court rules Donald Trump’s defamation case against BBC can proceed

A Florida court has dismissed the BBC’s attempt to have US President Donald Trump’s 10 billion dollar (£7.5 billion) defamation claim against the broadcaster thrown out.

Mr Trump is seeking substantial damages in a Florida court over the editing of a 2024 Panorama documentary about the US Capitol riots.

The documentary faced criticism for giving the impression Mr Trump had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol building on January 6 2021 after he lost the 2020 White House race to Joe Biden.

It is interesting and very common to see politically adverse events toned down by language in the media. This piece is a good example - "The documentary faced criticism". The "criticism" in this case is a £7.5 billion defamation claim. We have the BBC doing it too, in a typically BBC manner -

The BBC had been seeking to have the case thrown out, warning of the “chilling effect” it would have on “robust reporting on public figures and events”.

Again, the “chilling effect” is the prospect of financial annihilation. Fully deserved in my view, but unfortunately an out of court settlement is far more likely.

The court gave another description of this example of "robust reporting" - 

The court documents state: “Trump has plausibly alleged a comprehensive framework of actual malice by alleging the context in which the speech was edited along with a long list of circumstantial evidence to support a showing of actual malice with respect to theedit. [sic]”