30 minutes ago, JerryM said:

It is moot point at this pre-trial motion as far as action in Florida.

BTW the Judge on the case is Roy Altman a 2019 Trump first term appointment.

Posting of this forum that the BBC what editing the BBC may or may not have done. is not a moot point and is also incorrect as everyone knows that an edit took place and the BBC have also admitted the edit took place

What the BBC may or may not have done is make the edit to the Trump speech with malice which goes to the claim of defamation. But you'll have to argue that with someone else.

2 hours ago, JerryM said:

To answer briefly to a few above comments, at this stage of the lawsuit it does not make any difference as to what editing the BBC may or may not have done.

Trump team must be able show that the documentary was 'published' in Florida. So far, the best they have shown in filings is that there is an "immense likelihood" that it was seen in Florida.

'Maybe seen' will maybe not cut it. The BBC response says that while Trump contends the doco was available in Florida via VPN, they make no claim that anyone using VPN actually saw it.

9 minutes ago, JerryM said:

What the BBC may or may not have done is make the edit to the Trump speech with malice which goes to the claim of defamation. But you'll have to argue that with someone else.

You seem to be backtracking on your original false post which we all know is fake as the BBC have already admitted to the edit

Pardon my legal ignorance, whilst not a lover of the BBC myself, why would they have to defend themselves in a court in another country? I would have thought they would have to file it in the UK?

Cant they stick the middle finger up?

12 minutes ago, sungod said:

I would have thought they would have to file it in the UK?

They should've filed in the UK but they had only 1 year to do so. Which also means that the Trump media operation was unaware of the faux pas until the internal BBC memo was leaked.

18 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

You seem to be backtracking on your original false post which we all know is fake as the BBC have already admitted to the edit

My words were: what editing the BBC may or may not have done. which to any reasonable person would know, given as you say BBC has already admitted to the editing, in what mode re: malice was the editing done.

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

My words were: what editing the BBC may or may not have done. which to any reasonable person would know, given as you say BBC has already admitted to the editing, in what mode re: malice was the editing done.

clearly if you knew that the BBC did the edit and have already admitted to the edit why would you post a misleading statement "what editing the BBC may or may not have done."

To say anything I posted was to imply that BBC edited nuthin' is only an interpretation for someone in gotcha mode.

BTW the original Trump v BBC complaint contains 28 variations of the word 'malice'.

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

To say anything I posted was to imply that BBC edited nuthin' is only an interpretation for someone in gotcha mode.

BTW the original Trump v BBC complaint contains 28 variations of the word 'malice'.

I am sure that the Daily Telegraph utter the same word Gotcha when the leaked memo arrived on their desk where it showed that the BBC Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board (EGSB). had been discussing this issue since January 16th 2025

Whatever the outcome of any legal case Trump and the BBC viewers have won as it's likely that misleading edits will not be allowed by BBC program makers in the future

21 hours ago, gargamon said:

Good on the BBC. Don't bend over and spread 'em like all the other idiots thatr caved to the orange child in the white house.

He should send in a snatch team to rendition all involved to Guantanamo .......

This is a case cited by BBC. BBC did a bio (hit piece?) on Bill Cosby that used copyrighted material from the Cosby TV shows. The complaint by the copyright owner is that the doco 'leaked' (my word) into the US market via internet VPN etc. BBC said it was only broadcast in UK -- Federal Court ruling: Nix

This is a law firm summary in 2018:

However, unauthorized viewers could access the content (in California) by using virtual private networks ("VPNs") and proxy servers. Judge Percy Anderson held that "[u]nauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction; rather, Defendant's relationship with California must arise out of contacts that they themselves created with the state."

The court therefore held it lacked specific jurisdiction over BBC and Sugar Films.

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-mid-year-media-entertainment-technology-update.pdf

NB The original Trump v BBC complaint contains 26 references to the word 'VPN'.

BBC Acknowledges 'Misleading' Edit But Defends Trump's $10 Billion Suit

The BBC also said it will aim to move the case to New York from Florida if the suit isn't dismissed, because the claims relate to a documentary that BBC "did not create in Florida, produce in Florida, or air in Florida."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bbc-acknowledges-misleading-edit-but-defends-trumps-10-billion-suit-10747126

So before it gets to the 'malice' determination, it will depend on whether the Florida Federal judge adheres to the prior California federal ruling that unauthorized VPN-type references do not count to establish 'published' in Florida.

Ah, the beautiful irony. Donald Trump, a man whose political rise was arguably midwifed by a media ecosystem that meticulously distorts truth in his favor, now wants to sue the BBC for… spreading falsehoods. The poetic justice here is so thick you could spread it on toast.

One can only assume his legal theory is that the BBC committed the cardinal sin of not being Fox News. Where Fox would dutifully spin, omit, and fabricate to cast him as a misunderstood martyr, the BBC had the audacity to report facts and context. In Trump's worldview, any journalism that isn't overtly sycophantic is "defamation." It's a masterclass in projection: accuse others of the very weaponized misinformation your own most powerful media ally has perfected into a multibillion-dollar art form.

The man who regularly calls Fox to demand more flattering coverage, and who benefits hourly from their labyrinth of pro-Trump conspiracy theories and selective outrage, now wants to play the victim of biased reporting. It's not a legal strategy; it's a performative tantrum aimed at an audience that only watches one channel—a channel that would likely run this lawsuit as a segment on the "Deep State's War on Free Speech," before cutting to an ad for gold coins and survivalist gear.

In short, it's a stunt. A cynical ploy to fuel the persecution narrative that his supporters—and his favored network—crave. The message is clear: only media that functions as an unabashed PR arm is "fair." Anything else is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The hypocrisy isn't just stunning; it's the entire point.

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

So before it gets to the 'malice' determination, it will depend on whether the Florida Federal judge adheres to the prior California federal ruling that unauthorized VPN-type references do not count to establish 'published' in Florida.

And to note the California ruling was linked to a US Supreme Court decision on determining 'personal jurisdiction'.

7 hours ago, vinny41 said:

The BBC also said it will aim to move the case to New York from Florida if the suit isn't dismissed, because the claims relate to a documentary that BBC "did not create in Florida, produce in Florida, or air in Florida."

AI Gemini:

A major tactical reason for the move involves the "expiration date" for filing lawsuits:

New York: Generally has a one-year statute of limitations for defamation.

Florida: Has a two-year window.

The BBC has argued that under New York law, the claim might already be expired, which would lead to an automatic dismissal. By moving the case to a venue where the time limit has passed, the BBC could effectively end the lawsuit without ever going to trial.

Trump: Malicious BBC cannot wriggle out of my $10bn lawsuit

Broadcaster plans to file motion to dismiss defamation case brought by US president over Jan 6 Panorama clip

“The BBC is liable to President Trump for intentionally and maliciously defaming him by distorting and manipulating his speech,” a spokesman for the president’s legal team said.

“No amount of attempted legal manoeuvres can change that fact.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/01/13/bbc-seeks-to-dismiss-trump-lawsuit-panorama-edit/

Trump: Malicious BBC cannot wriggle out of my $10bn lawsuit

Maybe. Per the above linked article:

The BBC’s motion will claim the Florida court, where Mr Trump filed his lawsuit in November, lacks “personal jurisdiction” over the corporation and that the venue is “improper”, documents filed late on Monday evening UK time revealed.

Lawyers for the corporation will argue that since it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida, it should be thrown out of court.

NB And the Trump complaint with their 26 references to VPN's maybe is not a way to establish "personal jurisdiction"

Trump lawyers call BBC's Panorama defence 'untenable'

4 hours ago

Court papers filed earlier this month by the BBC showed the broadcaster will argue that the Florida court lacks "personal jurisdiction" over it, that the court venue is "improper", and that Trump has "failed to state a claim".

But in Trump's filing on Monday, his team maintained its argument that Floridians did have access to the BBC programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast in the UK just before the 2024 presidential election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5gjev099yo

NB While the original Trump complaint stated that there was an "immense likelihood" that the Panorama doc was viewed in Florida, the current response says that it was "in fact" viewed by citizens Florida but they do not say by whom or where.

NB2 via Gemini:

In federal civil procedure, a complaint is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it fails to state a claim that is "plausible on its face". This standard, established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), requires that the complaint provide enough factual matter to move a claim across the line from "conceivable" or "possible" to "plausible".

In its most recent response, Team Trump emphasizes the widespread use of VPN in Florida and that its a 'fact' that the Trump Panorama Doc was viewed by Florida citizens.

This per Gemini AI:

Prior Warnings: A 51% spike in VPN demand was noted on December 19, 2024, immediately after Pornhub's parent company, Aylo, announced it would block access to the site in Florida rather than comply with the new law.

The Law (HB3): Signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis 25 March, 2024, the law requires pornographic websites to implement "strict" age verification, such as checking government-issued IDs, to prevent minors from accessing the content.

Pornhub's Response: In protest of the law and citing user privacy concerns, Pornhub and other adult sites blocked access to users located in Florida.

On 2/4/2026 at 5:24 AM, JerryM said:

Trump lawyers call BBC's Panorama defence 'untenable'

4 hours ago

Court papers filed earlier this month by the BBC showed the broadcaster will argue that the Florida court lacks "personal jurisdiction" over it, that the court venue is "improper", and that Trump has "failed to state a claim".

But in Trump's filing on Monday, his team maintained its argument that Floridians did have access to the BBC programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast in the UK just before the 2024 presidential election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5gjev099yo

NB While the original Trump complaint stated that there was an "immense likelihood" that the Panorama doc was viewed in Florida, the current response says that it was "in fact" viewed by citizens Florida but they do not say by whom or where.

NB2 via Gemini:

In federal civil procedure, a complaint is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it fails to state a claim that is "plausible on its face". This standard, established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), requires that the complaint provide enough factual matter to move a claim across the line from "conceivable" or "possible" to "plausible".

The claim clearly states

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida,

What fact?

2 minutes ago, JerryM said:

What fact?

Do you disagree that the court claim clearly states

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

In the original complaint they used the term "immense likelihood" but now it's a fact. What changed?

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

In the original complaint they used the term "immense likelihood" but now it's a fact. What changed?

The court document was filed 15th December 2025 as shown on the header

Case 1:25-cv-25894-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 1 of 33

If you are aware of any earlier document maybe you can provide a link to such document

16 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

8 minutes ago, JerryM said:

And 23 both in the original court document

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking

AI Gemini:

Under Florida law, for a statement to constitute defamation (libel or slander), it must be communicated to at least one person other than the person being defamed. This requirement is known as "publication".

Ruling on page 1 this topic:

Judge Percy Anderson held that "[u]nauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction; rather, Defendant's relationship with California must arise out of contacts that they themselves created with the state."

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY

DISCOVERY IN PART PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.25.0_1.pdf

pg 5 And, while Plaintiff still has not named a Floridian who watched the

Documentary via a virtual private network (“VPN”), cf. Compl. ¶ 29, even if he had, such “[u]nauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction.”

Overall, due process is not satisfied where, as here, Plaintiff has not shown “that the Defendants have purposeful contacts with Florida from which his claims arise.” (their italics)