PA Bill Number: HB1441
Title: Providing for tenants' rights in cases of violence.
Description: Providing for tenants' rights in cases of violence. ...
Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY
Last Action Date: Jun 30, 2024
Katie Couric seeks dismissal of defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia gun-rights group :: 12/01/2016
Lawyers for journalist Katie Couric have asked a federal judge to throw out a defamation suit filed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, arguing that a brief span of misleading footage in a gun-control documentary didn’t damage the gun-rights group’s reputation.
The group filed a $12 million suit in September against Couric and an affiliated film production company, Atlas Films, claiming their reputations as gun advocates had been damaged by eight seconds of footage that falsely implied they had no answer to one of Couric’s questions on background checks. Participants in the group interview answered the question immediately, but the film, “Under the Gun,” was edited to insert the appearance of a long pause after Couric asked how guns could be kept away from terrorists and felons without universal background checks.
An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.
In a 34-page response filed Wednesday, Couric’s legal team said that even though the gun-rights advocates may be offended by their portrayal, the implication that they hesitated to answer a question does not qualify as an “odious” or “contemptible” allegation under Virginia law.
“Defendants have never disputed that editorial choice may fairly be subject to criticism and debate, and indeed it has been. But whatever one thinks about the propriety of the edit, it simply does not rise to the level of defamation,” the defense wrote.
The suit was filed in federal court in Richmond.
Epix, the premium movie channel that distributed the film, filed a separate motion to dismiss, saying the channel had no knowledge of the edit before the documentary’s release.
“The 8-second moment in the film flashes by extremely quickly,” attorneys for Epix wrote. “Moreover, there is nothing about plaintiffs’ ruminative silence in response to an extremely difficult public policy question — how the country will be able to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and felons without universal background checks — that would set off the alarm bells for substantial reputational damage.”
The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, as a named defendant on technical grounds, though she will remain a party to the legal proceedings.
The suit centers on a 2015 interview with VCDL members in Northern Virginia. The group claims the filmmakers used “deceptive editing methods” to make the interviewees appear at a loss for words. By creating that impression, the suit claims that VCDL as a group and individual interview participants were defamed as ignorant on gun-policy issues.
Couric apologized for the edit. Her court response states that the VCDL controversy attracted widespread media coverage, most of it “sympathetic” to the gun activists. The response also notes that preceding portions of the film showed the activists explaining their views on background checks and said the film must be considered as a whole.
“No reasonable viewer, having just heard several persons in the group explain the basis for their opposition to background checks, would believe after watching the contested footage that the film implies that plaintiffs had no ability to answer that question,” the response states.
Williams & Connolly LLP is representing Couric in the case, while Atlas Films is being represented by Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP. VCDL and its individual members are represented by Clare Locke LLP.
VCDL has until Dec. 16 to respond to the motion for dismissal.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_b8cd4a54-1762-551c-846d-f1fc1e9cd711.html
