By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The BBC has declared it will defend itself against President Trump’s threatened lawsuit, dismissing his claims of reputational damage and potential damages up to $5 billion. The broadcaster’s legal response centers on the argument that the Panorama program, “Trump: A Second Chance?,” did not air in the United States due to licensing restrictions, thus preventing any harm to his reputation within the US. Furthermore, the BBC implemented geo-blocking on its iPlayer platform, ensuring the program was inaccessible to American viewers.
Read the original article here
The whole idea of Donald Trump suing the BBC over a supposedly misleading documentary is, quite frankly, a joke. The consensus seems to be that he has absolutely no case, and it’s difficult to see how anyone could argue otherwise. Even if this program had somehow aired in the United States, which it didn’t, the legal ground upon which he’s trying to stand is incredibly shaky.
The core of the issue, as many observers have pointed out, is that Trump’s actions and words are what truly did the damage. The documentary didn’t “hurt” him; his own behavior, particularly the outright falsehoods he peddled, did. Remember the two big lies he told his supporters? First, the claim that the election was stolen, which was a flat-out fabrication. Second, the promise to march with them to the Capitol, a promise he ultimately broke by retreating to the safety of the White House. Let’s not forget his infamous call to “fight like hell,” which, to many, was a clear incitement to violence.
The reality is, if anyone should be facing legal action in the wake of the Capitol riot, it’s Trump, for using lies to rile up his supporters and causing chaos, injury, and even death. The argument that the BBC somehow defamed him is almost laughable. Defaming someone is the act of damaging the good reputation of someone, but how could anyone convince the public to believe him more detestable than he already is? It’s simply not believable. This is a man whose reputation precedes him, and the BBC didn’t invent anything.
The BBC, funded by the public, isn’t going to be easily swayed. Any money paid to Trump would be considered by many as a betrayal of the public trust. It’s almost comical to imagine him trying to argue his case in a British courtroom. He’d likely be laughed out, perhaps awarded a symbolic penny for his troubles. The notion of using legal processes for personal and political gain is a tactic many find distasteful, and this case certainly fits that bill.
Trump’s playbook is well-known. He makes grandiose claims, tries to do things that are impossible, and then, when it all falls apart, claims victory through some hidden back channel that he’ll never talk about. This lawsuit is likely more about controlling the narrative and silencing criticism than a genuine legal pursuit. The fact that the program didn’t even air in the U.S. makes the entire premise even more absurd.
Some suspect his real goal isn’t money, but to bar the BBC from operating in the US. He can use this lawsuit to try and block the BBC from reporting in the US. The documentary, in reality, simply presented his own words. It’s hard to imagine how that could be considered “misleading.” The majority of people have a negative view of Trump, so any attempt to paint him in a worse light seems futile. Some suggest that Trump sees these lawsuits as a means to extract money through threats and the prolonged legal process, no matter the merits of the case. He’s never been one to let the lack of a legal basis stop him from trying to get money.
The fact that the BBC is being targeted is ironic. It highlights the lengths Trump will go to silence his critics. His intention is not to win, but to make the BBC and other media outlets pay an exorbitant sum to defend themselves in the US legal system. The threat of appeals, the extended legal battles, all serve his purpose: to drain resources and potentially force a settlement.
The strategy is simple: attack, threaten, and see what you can extract. And don’t be surprised if this leads to the BBC being blocked from operating in the U.S. In fact, many believe that that is the real intent here. It’s a method of controlling the message, and punishing those who dare to disagree.