## Video Summary Donald Trump has initiated a lawsuit against the BBC in Florida, demanding no less than $5 billion in damages for what he claims is a false, defamatory, and malicious depiction of his statements made during a Panorama documentary aired just a week before the 2024 presidential election. The controversy stems from the BBC's editing of clips from Trump's speeches, which many viewers interpreted as inciting the Capitol riots. This legal action raises significant questions regarding jurisdiction, particularly since the BBC has a presence in the United States. Unlike the UK, where the losing party typically pays legal costs, in the US, each side generally bears its own expenses, which could lead to costs ranging between $10 million to $100 million for the BBC, depending on how the case unfolds. The Panorama program featured edited snippets of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021, leading critics to assert that these edits conveyed a misleading narrative implying that Trump had directly called for violence. This has sparked heated debates about freedom of speech, editorial discretion, and the responsibilities of public broadcasters. In addition, the BBC is facing scrutiny at home with the government proposing a new definition of anti-Muslim hatred to replace the term 'Islamophobia.' Critics argue that an official definition is unnecessary and could potentially infringe on free speech rights, suggesting that existing laws against discrimination and harassment are sufficient. Many advocate for a balanced approach that does not single out one religious group while emphasizing the importance of protecting all individuals from hate. As the lawsuit progresses and the discussions around the new definition continue, the BBC is poised to navigate a challenging legal and ethical landscape, which could have long-lasting implications for its operations and public perception. ## Transcript Win or lose, this is going to cost you. So, Donald Trump has now filed a lawsuit against the BBC in Florida. It's raised lots of questions, lots of concerns, which I’ll seek to address in this video. But also, back at home, our government is pressing on and insistent that it's going to follow through on some kind of definition on Islamophobia. We'll come back to that in the second half of the video. But first of all, Donald Trump and the BBC. Now, Donald Trump is suing the BBC for he claims no less than $5 billion. Here is what we would usually call the prayer, what the party seeks, at the end, and says, "Wherefore, plaintiff, President Donald Trump, demands judgment against the defendants, British Broadcasting Corporation, also known as BBC Studios Distribution Limited and BBC Studios Productions Limited, for damages in an amount not less than $5 billion, as well as interest costs, punitive damages. We don't have that here. That's kind of punishing damages. Come back to that in a minute. And such other relief as this court may deem just and proper." Now, there's a few interesting points here. I opened with win or lose, this will cost you. Well, obviously the BBC will either have to settle this or defend it. Now, they had the opportunity to settle it early on, and all they offered up was an apology and no money along with it. Now, many people will say, well, it's quite right that the BBC shouldn't offer up any money. It was just doing its broadcasting thing. But there is a problem with that as well. I'll come back to the video in a moment. You're probably familiar with the video, but I'll remind you of it. And again, why I think that is hugely problematic to say the least for the BBC. But win or lose, it will cost you because this will be in the United States. Now, there's a lot of argument over jurisdiction. Some people quite boldly saying this can't proceed. It's in the United States. But that is just frankly not true for a couple of reasons. Now, first of all, there is a parallel law in the US and in the UK for defamation. It is handled very slightly differently, but very broadly, it is the same. So whilst there are jurisdictional arguments, I think President Trump will be okay on that point. And also, in any event, the BBC does have a presence in the United States. It has offices there. It's got reporters there and so on. The argument that this Panorama program, Second Chance, wasn't broadcast in the United States, it was still firstly accessible in the UK to lots of American citizens and it's available by way of VPN and things like that. So there are lots of ways that people could have seen it. So I don't think any of those are going to be the problem. But the big problem for the BBC is because it's in the US, they will bear their own costs, win or lose. Because in the UK, the loser tends to pay the costs unless there's bad behavior and abusive litigation and that kind of thing. The costs usually follow the event. So usually, the winner will collect their costs from the losing party. Not so in the United States. The BBC will bear its own costs, which in a case like this could be $10 to $100 million. You can literally pick a figure and it could be anything between those sorts of numbers. It's a big defamation case. It will be a hugely expensive endeavor. If they follow through to trial, which for what it's worth, I don't think it will follow through to trial. I personally think it will settle. More about that in a second. But let's remind you of exactly what happened if you've no idea what we're talking about. But this is really a big deal. So, the BBC broadcast this Panorama program, splicing together different clips of Donald Trump's speeches. And I’ll give you my comments on it afterwards. But this is the comparison between the two thanks to The Telegraph here, the Panorama version, and then the original clip for contrast. Listen to this. We're going to walk down to the capital and I'll be there with you and we will fight. We fight like hell. So that's the Panorama version. That was what was broadcast. Now, I know for a fact that there were lots of people I know personally who believed that Donald Trump had incited these riots because of that clip. It was unequivocal. The way that it was spliced together, if that’s all that you saw, you may well have believed it was likely, in my view, that you would have believed that he’d incited those riots. I know people that genuinely thought that when we spoke of Donald Trump in conversation, they said, "Well, yeah, of course, he incited those riots. He invited people to go down and fight and then the riots happened." So, they genuinely believed that that happened. These are people that I personally know and they genuinely believed it. And that is sort of part of the test here. Bearing in mind this would go to a jury if it goes to full trial in the US, and it would be put to the jury. An ordinary reasonable person would have believed this to be true. And then we come on to arguments as to whether there's actual malice. But I'll come back to that in a minute. Now just for a moment, I'd like to tell you a personal story which has got a bit of a funny ending to it. So many years ago, when I was very much younger, I never really used to enjoy wine. When I got a little bit older, I started to develop a bit of a palate for wine. As a barrister and running my own barristers’ chambers, some of our barristers would bring wines to us or give us wines as gifts. And they were quite expensive. I’m talking £300, £400, £500 per bottle of wine. So, I started to develop a real taste and palate for wine until a point where I just got fed up and I just didn’t know what I wanted to drink. I didn’t know what I liked to drink. So, I went to the local guy and he said, "Why don’t you take a break from drinking altogether to sort of clear your palate?" And I think he probably regrets saying that because that was in September 2023 and I haven’t had any alcohol whatsoever since because I did take a break, only then I decided to give it up completely. So, I can only bet that he’s now kicking himself because I haven’t been back since and we did spend quite a lot of money there. And so the following year, I was looking for something else to drink with a bit more variety. And that’s where I found a company called Holi, who now sponsors my channel. They do a range of drinks with energy drinks, iced teas, and hydration drinks. They also do milkshakes as well. They’ve got all the classics: vanilla, caramel, hazelnut. The milkshakes are absolutely to die for. And so I carry one of these drinks around with me all the time because it encourages me to drink water. It tastes really fresh. It’s not as boring as water. It is full of vitamins and antioxidants. And most importantly, it gives me that variety because if you are bored in the evening and you don’t know what to drink, you can reach for some of this because it’s really tasty and it’s actually healthy for you. For Christmas, they’re doing limited edition flavors which includes this spiced biscuit one. And there’s a range of different flavors and you can do mix and match and grab lots of different flavors together. If you are new to Holi, they’ve got you covered. There is a starter set deluxe which comes with a fantastic water flask and a whole selection of the different flavors. I genuinely cannot stress how tasty these things are. And of course, if you want a discount, you can use the code barrista for a 10% discount off your entire order and ongoing orders. Or if you prefer a straightforward discount, just use the code barrista5 for a £5 discount off your order. And believe me, you will love these things. You’ll want to buy them as gifts and you’ll want to take them with you wherever you go throughout the day, throughout the evening. They are really, really tasty. I genuinely love these drinks. So, check out Holi. I can’t believe it’s been 2 and a half years since I’ve had any alcohol whatsoever. And I can honestly say these have been a fantastic help. So, thank you to Holi. Please do check them out. But now to the actual clips of Donald Trump before the Panorama edits. Listen to the difference. We’re going to walk down to the capital and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. So, cheer them on. He didn’t say fight like hell. That’s not what he said. Now, some people say, "Oh, well, they just spliced together bits and pieces. That didn’t mean anything." But of course it did because people genuinely believed that he was inciting riots. And if there was any doubt about that, that is cleared up by this letter here from the chair of the BBC who said as follows. Turning to the specific story, the editing of President Trump’s speech on the 6th of January in the Panorama, Trump: A Second Chance. He says the editing of President Trump’s speech on January the 6th has attracted significant attention. This issue was the subject of the editorial guidance standards and controls in January 25 and again in May. There was concern expressed by the members of the committee as well as Mr. Prescott of the way the program was edited. However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama’s audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground at the time. So he confirms there that they wanted people to understand that this was what he meant at the time. So albeit this letter is after the event, he’s confirming, yeah, this is what we wanted people to think. We wanted people to take that clip as to understand what was going on at the time. And later in this letter, the other highlights down below, he says, "We accept that the way that the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment." So they’re calling it an error of judgment. But the problem I think they have here is the bit at the top here. He says, and he confirms here, which will no doubt be turned up in evidence, the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that the audience could better understand how it had been received by supporters and what was happening on the ground at the time. So this is a clear statement that they intended people who watched the program to believe that that’s what he was doing, and he accepts that it gave the impression of a direct call for violent action. Now, in the US, they have to prove actual malice in these kinds of claims, but that is not necessarily to my understanding—I’m not a US attorney—but to my understanding, it is not necessarily that they were being nasty. But also, it can include a reckless disregard for the truth. And so if they were found to be reckless, which I think is reasonably likely here because it resulted in a false impression, if they were found to be reckless and then to have disregarded the truth, that might overcome this bar of actual malice. Now, it is normally a high bar, but that might well overcome this bar of actual malice. So coming to the lawsuit itself, we are indeed in unprecedented times here. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. President Donald Trump suing the BBC. Plaintiff President Donald Trump, by and through his counsel, brings this action against defendants BBC and states as follows. This action concerns a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published on the BBC Panorama documentary that was fabricated and aired by the defendants one week before the 2024 presidential election in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence election's outcome to President Trump’s detriment. So, you can take each bit of that and analyze it in turn. Was it false? Yes. Was it defamatory? Well, yes, because they accept that it created this impression that he had a direct call to violent action. Was it deceptive? Well, it deceived people to believing that that’s what he said when he didn’t. Is it disparaging? Yes. Inflammatory? Yes. Now, the malicious bit is something that they might have a little bit of a better job arguing because they will say that it was just bad editorial judgment and it was the wrong call. We just wanted to give this impression or whatever. But the way that it was done, they are expected to be professional. They are expected to uphold the highest standards. They are expected to have a very senior editor look at it and say, "That gives this impression. We shouldn’t do that because that’s not what he said." That is not a very difficult thing to do. Even when I do my videos here, I am a one-man YouTuber band barrister who produces these things for you. And even I go back and think sometimes that might have given you the wrong impression. So I cut that bit out before they go out to you and even after publication sometimes if I think it needs clarification, I will do that. But the BBC’s got a whole team of people here that that just frankly should not have happened. So in short, the legal framework is very broadly similar to the UK in that there needs to be a false statement of fact. It needs to be published to other parties. There needs to be some kind of fault involved as I’ve mentioned this actual malice—knowledge that it’s false or reckless disregard for the truth—and then the damages that they seek for the reputational harm. And bearing in mind they will also have reference to the leaked memo by Michael Prescott who was an external advisor to the editorial guidance and standards committee and he wrote this memo complaining about the Panorama program. Now the BBC says that this didn’t paint the full picture, but they will refer to it. The memo that Michael Prescott sent directly to the BBC board was printed in full by The Telegraph and on the US election, it said as follows. One week before polling day, BBC aired an hour-long Panorama special called Trump: A Second Chance. He said, "I watched the program and found it to be neither balanced nor impartial. It seemed to be taking a distinctly anti-Trump stance. Critics of the Republican presidential candidate vastly outnumbered those who argued for him. What examination was there of reasons for Trump’s popularity seemed to me insufficient to give an overall balance of the program? Given what I took to be an anti-Trump nature of the program, I of course assumed there’d be a similar balancing Panorama program about Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The following week, I remain shocked that there was not. So, there was only one against President Trump. He said, "I raised my concerns at the EGSC and David Grman and was asked to review the program. He concluded that the main contributors to the documentary were heavily weighted against Trump with just one supporter against 10 who questioned his fitness for office. Worse still, David highlighted alarming concerns about how Panorama had edited President Trump’s speech to his supporters on January the 6th, the day of the Capitol Hill riot. Examining the charge that Trump had incited protesters to storm Capitol Hill, it turned out that Panorama had spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech. This created the impression that Trump said something that he did not, and in doing so materially misled viewers. Further down, he said, "And yet faced with David’s findings, the executive refused to accept there had been a breach of standards and doubled down on its defense of Panorama, which obviously now there’s been a bit of a change of stance because they do now accept that it created this false impression. So the bottom line is win or lose, the BBC will either have to settle or fight this case, and in doing so it’s going to cost money which they will probably say won’t be passed on to the license fee payers directly, but ultimately it is a public broadcaster one way or another it’s going to cost the general public if this is a successful case against the BBC. Whilst I don’t think it will be anything like the billions of dollars that he is claiming, it could certainly be a very expensive exercise for the BBC to either settle or if they do lose that they will have to pay out in damages and the $10 to $100 million, whoever’s guess as to the legal costs in actually fighting the case. And of course, there’s always a concern as to how is the BBC going to drum up more funds and more license fees and so on. We’ve seen their letters getting frankly out of hand in my view with the latest iteration saying enforcement notice at the top when I think that is just plain wrong. I’ll link my other video below so you can go and watch my views on that. But ultimately, this could be a very difficult time for the BBC. And if I were to guess, I would say that they will probably end up settling it one way or another without going to a full trial. That’s just my guess at this stage. I don’t think they will want it to go to a full trial. They will have reams and reams of evidence coming out which might go against them. So, I think ultimately they probably will just settle it. That’s just my view at the moment. But also the BBC is now reporting again on ministers apparently finalizing this definition of anti-Muslim hatred in replacement for Islamophobia. Now I don’t think there’s any such need for any definition and I think any kind of definition like this is going to in itself require further definition else people may be caught up in it unknowingly, unwittingly, wrongly perhaps because many of the bits which I’ll come to in a minute in turn would require their own definition and so it would be a circular argument, circular definition, and ultimately is going to be unhelpful. Now obviously I am against people throwing hateful comments and prejudice against each other, but I still don’t think there’s a need for any kind of definition like this. There are already laws against harassment and discrimination and these kinds of things. We already have those laws. We already have laws that make something a hate crime if it is a specific crime that is linked with any protected characteristic which already includes race and things like that. But let’s have a look at what they say here. So the BBC says the government’s considering this draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred which does not include the term Islamophobia. But frankly I don’t think it matters what they call it. I think it matters that they are trying to put a definition on something where really I just don’t think it is necessary. So the so-called draft definition is here and I think it’s problematic. We’ll go through it. It says anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written, or electronically communicated which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity, or appearance. And that’s just the first paragraph, and it is in my view it is riddled with problems here. So let’s take each one in turn. It firstly anti-Muslim hostility. Well, what is hostility? You know, is a disagreement with somebody? Is that hostility? Does that come within the definition of hostility? Because if someone is just having an altercation with somebody, let’s say someone’s crashed into the car and they’re having an argument about it, and someone is perceived to be Muslim because of, I don’t know, the way that they’re dressed or whatever else, and then someone accuses them of anti-Muslim hostility because they’re having an argument. Does that now fall within this definition? Well, that is the problem here. And that is the way that this is going to affect free speech. So, hostility—that could mean anything. It could just mean an argument. Two people having an argument is not a crime. It’s not illegal. You know, there could be all sorts of reasons it could turn into a crime, but just having an argument with somebody or telling somebody that you’re upset about something is not a crime. It’s not illegal. It would require a high bar for that to cross a criminal threshold. So, hostility literally the third word here, and it’s within the original definition that I’ve got a problem with, and I already think it’s problematic. So the next one, engaging in—what is that supposed to mean? Engaging in—does that mean, you know, does that include liking a post on X? Does it include retweeting or reposting a post on X? Does it mean replying to something? Because if you engage with something, surely just a reply is engaging with something. So let’s say one person is—here’s how ridiculous it could be. If one person is making horrible comments and you engage with it by saying, "Now come on, don’t do that," then are you engaging in that act? Because if someone is committing that act and you’re engaging with it, this doesn’t say that, you know, with intent to encourage it or whatever. It just says engaging in or encouraging criminal acts. Obviously, if you’re encouraging a criminal act, that’s somewhat different, but even then, it still might cross into free speech territory. Encouraging a criminal act is already defined elsewhere in law. Having a separate definition of it within another definition is simply problematic, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation. We already have laws for those. You know, the Protection from Harassment Act already defines harassment, what amounts to harassment. And with any of those offenses, whether they are aggravated by protected characteristics, you know, sex, age, gender, race, religion, etc., we already have those defined elsewhere. And again, whether physical, verbal, written, or electronically communicated. In this context, what does electronically communicated mean? Again, could it mean just liking a post? So, if someone has liked a post that someone else has posted, is that engaging in something, and are they then liable for something? It doesn’t really say what they’re liable for. It’s just a draft definition of something. And then, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their race, religion, etc. I think all of these things linking together are problematic. It then goes on to say it is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialization of Muslims as part of a collective group with a sec characteristics to stir up hatred. Now again we already have an offense of stirring up hatred, stirring up racial hatred. We already have an offense for that, and that itself I think has its own problems. There are two types of those offenses—one where it’s clearly intentional and one where it says in the circumstances it is likely that racial hatred is likely to be stirred up—and I think that is problematic as well. But that is the statutory offense here; it’s just wound up within another definition, which I think is problematic. And then it says irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs, or actions, so it says irrespective of what you actually believe or what your opinion is or actions as individuals are. Then it goes on to say it is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct, including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions, is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life. Now again, if there’s discrimination happening within an institution or organization, a company that is already unlawful under the Equality Act. So if someone creates a policy or creates any kind of practice or bias within an institution which disadvantages anybody—not just Muslims, but it disadvantages anybody because of race, religion, sex, gender, age, disability, etc.—they are already unlawful under the Equality Act. Unless there’s an exception whereby perhaps it’s, you know, positive action for a legitimate aim and so on, it is already unlawful under the Equality Act. We don’t need another definition which is only really going to serve to confuse people. And so all of this taken together, this as a new draft definition, I think is really problematic. I think this is going to cut across free speech. It’s going to result in lots of different lawsuits and it might well be subject to challenge as being unreasonable because it’s not even clear what it’s for. Is it going to be used in conjunction with crimes? Because then it should be within the statute. It can’t just be a standalone definition that is sort of spliced into existing laws and defenses. Again, I’m anti-hate. I don’t like people being hateful with each other. But I will fight for people’s right to say what they think so long as it doesn’t cross the criminal threshold, which should be a high threshold. And it is indeed. It is a high threshold for free speech to cross the criminal threshold. And as it happens, Free Speech Union agrees with me, who says an official definition of Islamophobia is unnecessary. The UK already has laws protecting all religious groups, including Muslims, from religious hatred and discrimination. The government is set to repackage its official definition of Islamophobia as anti-Muslim hostility. And again, I don’t think it matters what they call it. It matters that they are trying to define it when it’s unnecessary, and it’s already set out in law elsewhere. Free Speech Union says, "But no matter how the government tries to spin it, the public don’t buy it." General Secretary of Free Speech Union, Lord Young, has said, "Granting Muslims additional protections not extended to people of other faiths will have the effect of increasing anti-Muslim hostility, not reducing it." And I think he has a very valid point because not only could this be seen to be ironically discriminatory in that it is only defining hate for one religious group and not the rest, it may inadvertently have the result of causing people to be frustrated by it because if they’re going to do one religion, they should do them all. And where do we draw the line? So frankly, I don’t think we should do any of them because we already have laws against harassment, discrimination, and so on. The Free Speech Union goes on, "In a free society, no religion should be sheltered from legitimate challenge and criticism," which is obviously where this may go. They may go against people who are legitimately challenging and criticizing any religion. They go on, "Should the definition, as is now expected, include prejudicial stereotyping and racialization of Muslims as a form of anti-Muslim hostility, we could find ourselves in a situation where speaking about the grooming gang scandal is hindered." And there’s an article that they link below you can go and find as well. So, in short, I think it’s unnecessary, but it looks like Labour are trying to push this through. I think that’s problematic as an understatement. But let me know what you think in the comments. Politely and respectfully, please do subscribe to the channel. And as always, thank you for watching.