From a $5bn lawsuit against the BBC to a stalled £31bn tech deal, this is what “going it alone” looks like when your biggest ally starts turning the tables
He has added to it by claiming that the BBC had used AI to make him say words that he says he did not. The BBC should counter sue for defamation. I think they have a lot better chance of winning than he does.
To win a defamation case, a plaintiff (the person suing) generally must prove four elements:
A false statement of fact was made. Opinions are generally protected free speech and not considered defamatory.
The statement was communicated to a third party (someone other than the plaintiff and the person making the statement).
The person making the statement was at least negligent regarding the truth or falsity of the statement.
The statement caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation or caused other damages.
The Role of Truth and Character
Truth is a complete defense: If you can prove that your statement is true, you are immune from a defamation lawsuit. Minor inaccuracies are acceptable as long as the overall "gist" or "sting" of the statement is accurate.
Public Record: Facts that are part of a person's actual criminal record are generally a matter of public record, and stating those facts truthfully is not defamation.
Reputation Already Damaged: A person with an already poor reputation or criminal convictions might have difficulty proving significant new damages resulting from a new false statement. The argument could be made that their reputation was already adversely affected.
"Libel-Proof Plaintiff" Doctrine: In some extreme cases, a person's reputation may be so damaged that they are considered "libel-proof," meaning they cannot be harmed further by additional statements, even false ones.
Cannot Falsely Accuse: You cannot falsely accuse someone of a crime they did not commit, even if they have a history of other criminal convictions. Falsely accusing someone of a serious crime is often considered "defamation per se," where harm to reputation is presumed without needing explicit proof of financial loss.
In essence, while a person's pre-existing bad character and criminal convictions are relevant to a defamation case (especially regarding the issue of damages), they do not give you a free pass to publish new, unrelated, false statements of fact about them.'
Trump is suing The Pulitzer Board, because of something they did. The board have come back demanding full disclosure of his financial and medical records amongst other things.
This is how the BBC should fight his pathetic damages claim.
Both Trump and his gestapo administration need bring down a peg or two.
I think it's absolutely bloody infuriating. The gall of the man! I hope the BBC tells him where to get off (politely or otherwise). I hope the government backs them to the hilt.
Bear have you changed your name to Hugh Grant 2? What you've just described was his retort to the bullying yank in Love Actually. Truth is they've walked round with our balls in their hands since WW2 and, as per dear Hugh, it's about time we told 'em to Fuck. Right. Orf & to take their businesses with em. Just like in the film, I suspect only the feckless or moronic might see that move as less than correct. More bowing & scrapping to them endows our nation with even less gravitas on the world stage whilst simultaneously making us an even more hapless slut in their eyes.
For God's sake, our our nations, just tell the lying, shifty, parasitic imbeciles to go screw their mothers like always...
He has added to it by claiming that the BBC had used AI to make him say words that he says he did not. The BBC should counter sue for defamation. I think they have a lot better chance of winning than he does.
Exactly. I can't argue with any of that and I confess that I did try to find fault.
Trump is going to struggle to win this.
From the net.
'Key Principles of Defamation Law
To win a defamation case, a plaintiff (the person suing) generally must prove four elements:
A false statement of fact was made. Opinions are generally protected free speech and not considered defamatory.
The statement was communicated to a third party (someone other than the plaintiff and the person making the statement).
The person making the statement was at least negligent regarding the truth or falsity of the statement.
The statement caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation or caused other damages.
The Role of Truth and Character
Truth is a complete defense: If you can prove that your statement is true, you are immune from a defamation lawsuit. Minor inaccuracies are acceptable as long as the overall "gist" or "sting" of the statement is accurate.
Public Record: Facts that are part of a person's actual criminal record are generally a matter of public record, and stating those facts truthfully is not defamation.
Reputation Already Damaged: A person with an already poor reputation or criminal convictions might have difficulty proving significant new damages resulting from a new false statement. The argument could be made that their reputation was already adversely affected.
"Libel-Proof Plaintiff" Doctrine: In some extreme cases, a person's reputation may be so damaged that they are considered "libel-proof," meaning they cannot be harmed further by additional statements, even false ones.
Cannot Falsely Accuse: You cannot falsely accuse someone of a crime they did not commit, even if they have a history of other criminal convictions. Falsely accusing someone of a serious crime is often considered "defamation per se," where harm to reputation is presumed without needing explicit proof of financial loss.
In essence, while a person's pre-existing bad character and criminal convictions are relevant to a defamation case (especially regarding the issue of damages), they do not give you a free pass to publish new, unrelated, false statements of fact about them.'
Indeed. Wasn’t hard to determine that before the vote. Although too hard for 52 tho.
Trump is suing The Pulitzer Board, because of something they did. The board have come back demanding full disclosure of his financial and medical records amongst other things.
This is how the BBC should fight his pathetic damages claim.
Both Trump and his gestapo administration need bring down a peg or two.
I think it's absolutely bloody infuriating. The gall of the man! I hope the BBC tells him where to get off (politely or otherwise). I hope the government backs them to the hilt.
Bear have you changed your name to Hugh Grant 2? What you've just described was his retort to the bullying yank in Love Actually. Truth is they've walked round with our balls in their hands since WW2 and, as per dear Hugh, it's about time we told 'em to Fuck. Right. Orf & to take their businesses with em. Just like in the film, I suspect only the feckless or moronic might see that move as less than correct. More bowing & scrapping to them endows our nation with even less gravitas on the world stage whilst simultaneously making us an even more hapless slut in their eyes.
For God's sake, our our nations, just tell the lying, shifty, parasitic imbeciles to go screw their mothers like always...
I believe Trump is our special imaginary friend that's because im suffering from Trump Demonic Syndrome