Army mulls legal action over BBC report

[Developereo]

Not really..In this hypothetical case, PA will need to prove that it was defamed. Defamed is not a emotional state which the court will take on face value. the plaintiff will need to establish that the defamation was a result of BBC's documentary. Also, BBC need not even prove what they said is true.. They can simply refer to it as a reasonably accurate opinion under fair comment definition. As long as BBC has not publicly concluded that Pakistan aids terrorists and passed a judgement on that, there is really no case...

Defamation occurs the moment someone says or publishes a false statement intended to damage someone's reputation. Whether the statement causes emotional or financial pain as a result is part of damages, not defamation.

I haven't watched the documentary but, from what people are posting here, it sounds like the BBC crew are making statements that the Pak army was materially complicit in the deaths of NATO soldiers.

If all they are doing is airing interviews with supposed Taliban without making supporting allegations of their own, that may be a different case.

Think of it this way: if the BBC aired a documentary where some nameless individual claimed that you had sold him drugs and the BBC interviewer repeated the allegation as fact, you could sue BBC for defamation. The act of defamation itself is on tape. Now it's up to the BBC to prove that you did, indeed, sell drugs to that particular individual.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Defamation occurs the moment someone says or publishes a false statement intended to damage someone's reputation. Whether the statement causes emotional or financial pain as a result is part of damages, not defamation.

I haven't watched the documentary but, from what people are posting here, it sounds like the BBC crew are making statements that the Pak army was materially complicit in the deaths of NATO soldiers.

If all they are doing is airing interviews with supposed Taliban without making supporting allegations of their own, that may be a different case.

Think of it this way: if the BBC aired a documentary where some nameless individual claimed that you had sold him drugs and the BBC interviewer repeated the allegation as fact, you could sue BBC for defamation. The act of defamation itself is on tape. Now it's up to the BBC to prove that you did, indeed, sell drugs to that particular individual.

Focus on the words in red. That's what the PA will have to proove first of all.

A journalist can always refer to the interviewee.

 

[Developereo]

Focus on the words in red. That's what the PA will have to proove first of all.

A journalist can always refer to the interviewee.

Perhaps English is not your first language.

Whatever statement is made by the BBC interviewer, the litigant can claim that it is false. The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that it is true.

To take the example I gave to karan, it is not up to you to prove that you never sold drugs to anyone. It is up to the BBC and that person to prove that you sold drugs to that individual.

 

[ashok321]

And PA will file the defamation case where?
If it is London, which apparentely should be the case.
Then the English laws of free speech remain tall and unhindred.
Where journalists are not forced to divulge their source of information (unless its criminal in nature or felonious).

 

[VSS]

BBC shuld be packed from pakistan forever .its not first time but most the time there new base on anti pakistan anti islamic .

What purpose will it solve? Whatever they are showing is not for Pakistan's consumption.

 

[karan.1970]

Defamation occurs the moment someone says or publishes a false statement intended to damage someone's reputation. Whether the statement causes emotional or financial pain as a result is part of damages, not defamation.

I haven't watched the documentary but, from what people are posting here, it sounds like the BBC crew are making statements that the Pak army was materially complicit in the deaths of NATO soldiers.

If all they are doing is airing interviews with supposed Taliban without making supporting allegations of their own, that may be a different case.

Think of it this way: if the BBC aired a documentary where some nameless individual claimed that you had sold him drugs and the BBC interviewer repeated the allegation as fact, you could sue BBC for defamation. The act of defamation itself is on tape. Now it's up to the BBC to prove that you did, indeed, sell drugs to that particular individual.

2 key points in your post itself..

1. Defamation occurs the moment someone says or publishes a false statement intended to damage someone's reputation

The intent and the fact the statement is false needs to be proven if BBC concluded that Pakistan Army aids terrorists. If it merely repeated what the interviewees said, even 5000 times, no cigar.. And knowing BBC and the fact that this would have gone thru a fine tooth comb to prevent exactly what you are refering to, I will be surprised if BBC anchors were publicly announcing Pakistan state as a terror sponsor

2. and the BBC interviewer repeated the allegation as fact :: Now if BBC termed it as a fact, then yes, there could be a case, however if they merely drew and inference and stated it as such, then again, the rule of fair comment comes into play.. Again no cigar..

 

[Developereo]

2 key points in your post itself..

1. Defamation occurs the moment someone says or publishes a false statement intended to damage someone's reputation

The intent and the fact the statement is false needs to be proven if BBC concluded that Pakistan Army aids terrorists. If it merely repeated what the interviewees said, even 5000 times, no cigar.. And knowing BBC and the fact that this would have gone thru a fine tooth comb to prevent exactly what you are refering to, I will be surprised if BBC anchors were publicly announcing Pakistan state as a terror sponsor

2. and the BBC interviewer repeated the allegation as fact :: Now if BBC termed it as a fact, then yes, there could be a case, however if they merely drew and inference and stated it as such, then again, the rule of fair comment comes into play.. Again no cigar..

I put the word 'false' in there to distinguish a defamation from plain information.

If you say something to damage someone's reputation and the statement is (or can be shown to be) true, then it is not defamation. But you must be able to prove that it is true. If you cannot prove it, then the person will win their defamation case even if it happens to be true. It's all about what you can prove.

In fact, intent is not even necessary. It only aggravates the defamation. An unintentional defamation is still defamation.

As for your other point, yes, it all depends how the BBC crew worded their commentary. If they simply said "this is what these Taliban allege", that's one thing. But if their commentary presents these allegations as fact -- where a reasonable person would conclude that the BBC was endorsing that claim -- then there is liability.

In proper investigative journalism, you are expected to present both sides of the story. The victim of an allegation must be given equal time to respond. If that is not done, the case for intentional defamation becomes stronger.

 

[ashok321]

As for your other point, yes, it all depends how the BBC crew worded their commentary. If they simply said "this is what these Taliban allege", that's one thing. But if their commentary presents these allegations as fact -- where a reasonable person would conclude that the BBC was endorsing that claim -- then there is liability.

So far in the world, how many documentaries have ended in the court of law and tested by a Jury?

 

[Developereo]

So far in the world, how many documentaries have ended in the court of law and tested by a Jury?

Why ask me? Just google 'sue bcc defamation' or 'sue abc defamation', etc. and you will see.

 

[karan.1970]

I put the word 'false' in there to distinguish a defamation from plain information.

If you say something to damage someone's reputation and the statement is (or can be shown to be) true, then it is not defamation. But you must be able to prove that it is true. If you cannot prove it, then the person will win their defamation case even if it happens to be true. It's all about what you can prove.

In fact, intent is not even necessary. It only aggravates the defamation. An unintentional defamation is still defamation.

As for your other point, yes, it all depends how the BBC crew worded their commentary. If they simply said "this is what these Taliban allege", that's one thing. But if their commentary presents these allegations as fact -- where a reasonable person would conclude that the BBC was endorsing that claim -- then there is liability.

In proper investigative journalism, you are expected to present both sides of the story. The victim of an allegation must be given equal time to respond. If that is not done, the case for intentional defamation becomes stronger.

I think its getting a bit too hypothetical.. Lets watch the documentary and then we can probably discuss it more specifically...

 

[ashok321]

Why ask me? Just google 'sue bcc defamation' or 'sue abc defamation', etc. and you will see.

It is going to be the first documentary that would be sued by an Armed forces of a perticular country.

 

[President Camacho]

Legal action against documentary?

Did he really say he "reserves the right to take legal action"?

Cannot believe someone so old and experienced making such a... stupid statement?

Shouldn't the case be against... Bruce Riedel, Latif Afridi, Mullah Fazlullah etc?

Would be first of a kind to see a case against a "finding", and that too when the BBC itself is not saying anything at all.

And it will sure be a lot of fun to watch if they go ahead with it... and I hope they do, because I want to watch.

 

[JonAsad]

why so much fuss over a damn tv documentary?-
i watched it like i watch bollywood- all fake but entertaining-
and some things in the documentary really made me Proud-

ISI & Pak Fouj Zindabad-

Jalnay walon ka mun kala-

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Depends.. Like the case where ISI is sued for terrorism and wrongful death is in the USA courts even though the alleged wrongful death occurred in India by Pakistani citizens

did you see KGB being sued for the death of Alexander Litvinenko? or CIA for any of its political assassinations?

I see a symmetry here, Americans make a blame share no evidence, Brisith produce the WMD evidence and the dossier and Bush quotes it and uses it to invade Iraq. After nothing is found, he in his interview blames the British intelligence and the dossier.

 

[karan.1970]

did you see KGB being sued for the death of Alexander Litvinenko? or CIA for any of its political assassinations?

I see a symmetry here, Americans make a blame share no evidence, Brisith produce the WMD evidence and the dossier and Bush quotes it and uses it to invade Iraq. After nothing is found, he in his interview blames the British intelligence and the dossier.

But the one i referred to has no British angle.. Its just the family members of an American killed in 26/11 suing Pasha for causing a wrongful death..