Judge Rules Katie Couric Did Not Defame Gun Advocates
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Jun 18, 2017
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
A federal court judge has ruled that a documentary produced by Katie Couric, and including an interview with her, did not defame gun rights supporters.
Couric asked the members how they proposed keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
The members responded that felons should be allowed to have guns, and that preventing people from owning guns did not prevent crime.
Eight Seconds of Silence
Rather than showing the actual response, the documentary included eight seconds of silence, suggesting that the members didn’t have a response to the question.
Then, the film cuts to an image of the chamber of a revolver closing.
Couric later apologized for the deceptive editing.
However, two members of the group sued for defamation, seeking $13 million in damages. They contended that the documentary created a false impression.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the documentary suggested:
- the plaintiffs had no basis for their opposition to background checks;
- they are uninformed notwithstanding their expertise in the areas of gun regulations and rights;
- they were stumped by Couric’s question; and
- they are ignorant or unfit in their trades.
The judge noted that in order to state a claim for defamation in Virginia (where the complaint was filed), the plaintiffs must publish an “actionable statement about the plaintiffs with the requisite intent.”
An “actionable” statement must be both false and defamatory, and, depending on the statement, must result in actual damages to the plaintiffs.
The judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims failed because the interview scene was not false.
Said the judge,
Under the Gun portrays members of the VCDL not answering the question posed by Couric. In reality, members of the VCDL did not answer the question posed by Couric.
They talked about background checks and gun laws generally, but did not answer the question of how to prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing guns without background checks. The editing simply dramatizes the sophistry of the VCDL members.
In addition, said the judge, the documentary was not defamatory:
Defamatory words damage a plaintiff’s reputation in the community or deter others from associating or dealing with him. Words that simply offend or insult the plaintiff do not qualify as defamatory; the words must “sting” the plaintiffs reputation.
Scorn and Ridicule
For example, noted the judge, falsely calling someone a convict, a perjurer, or a leper stings the reputation because these allegations “render that person odious and may hold him up to scorn and ridicule.”
Similarly, statements that impute plaintiffs are unfit in their profession — like calling someone a “lying lawyer” or a “dirty doctor” sting the reputation and may deter people from dealing with them.
The judge concluded that the film didn’t support the plaintiffs’ first two claims at all.
Regarding the third claim, the judge held:
The film does imply that the individual plaintiffs were stumped by Couric’s question. As presented by Under the Gun, members of the VCDL answered a handful of questions about guns and background checks, but then sat silently in the face of a question about how to prevent felons and terrorists from purchasing guns without the use of background checks. At worst, this shows artistically that they either cannot or will not answer the question. Their verbal responses during the interview showed the same thing.
Not having an answer to a question on a difficult and complex issue is not defamatory, said the judge.