Yesterday, on the anniversary of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Federalist Society released an excerpt from a documentary about his life and legacy. The eight-minute video includes quotes from his children and the other Supreme Court Justices, and some clips of him in action. “On the anniversary of his passing, some of the people who knew him best recount the life and legacy of the ‘inimitable’ Antonin Scalia–father, husband, jurist,” says a statement on the conservative organization’s website.

“He was a principled man.” – Chief Justice Roberts
“I miss him every day. He was inimitable.” – Justice Ginsburg https://t.co/ya7rFSbXfL

— Federalist Society (@FedSoc) February 14, 2017

Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court has been empty ever since he passed away, as Republicans refused to vote, or even consider, former President Obama’s nominee to replace him, Merrick Garland. Now that President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch, who is a conservative judge very similar to Scalia in many ways, a lot of Democrats have criticized what they call the GOP’s double standard. Outspoken civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton said over the weekend:

Now they want to talk about, since Trump has nominated Gorsuch, how qualified he is. Well, he ain’t no more qualified than Garland was. The danger of this proceeding is, are you now saying that you will select Supreme Court judges based on if the party on the White House corresponds with the party that is the majority of the Senate, then you have in effect changed the constitutional requirements to select a Supreme Court judge.

It’s unclear if or when the Federalist Society will release a full-length documentary about the former justice. But the video clip ends with the words “coming soon.” In the meantime, Neil Gorsuch is on the long road of questionnaires, procedures, and hearings that make up the confirmation process, to finally replace the vacancy left by Scalia.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federalist Society Released Part of a Documentary about Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

Katie Couric, famous journalist and current Yahoo! Global News Anchor, now faces a $12 million lawsuit for her recent documentary “Under the Gun.” The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who were interviewed for the movie and claim that their representation in the film was unfairly edited and amounts to defamation.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), as well as two of its individual members, filed a lawsuit against Couric and others that produced the film in a U.S. District Court in Richmond, in which they argue that a clip of the movie was edited unfairly and constitutes defamation. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $12 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff.

The segment in question involves Couric’s interview with several members of the VCDL, specifically the clip involving a question about their views on background checks for gun purchases. The clip was edited to make it appear as though the plaintiffs were unable to answer a question, when in fact, they quickly responded to Couric.

Here’s the clip as it appeared in the movie:

And here’s the audio from the actual interaction given to the Washington Free Beacon:

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue,

The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

It’s pretty obvious that the movie’s editing amounts to a dishonest representation of what happened. The film makes it look like Couric’s question–which asks whether background checks are necessary to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing guns–completely stumped the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League whom she was talking to. But when you listen to the actual audio, you notice that the interviewees almost immediately provide a rebuttal. Moreover, the film was edited to show b-roll footage of the VCDL members sitting still for about eight seconds after they were asked the question prior to cutting to the next scene. This added to viewers’ perceptions that they were stumped by the question when, in fact, they quickly responded.

This is also something that Couric herself has admitted. In a statement on the documentary’s website, Couric wrote, “I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.” She continued: “I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.”

Although everyone can agree that the clip was misleading, the question that remains is whether it amounts to defamation. Defamation lawsuits are not easy cases to win. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Couric and the other producers acted with “actual malice.” This means that not only was their work false or misleading, but it also intended to do reputational harm to those in the clip.

A misleading portrayal of someone may be less likely to be considered defamatory compared to showing something insulting about a person that is verifiably false. Defamation claims also need “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims, a relatively high standard for the burden of proof.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stephanie Soechtig, the movie’s director who is also named in the suit, told CNN:

It’s ironic that people who so passionately defend the Second Amendment want to trample the rights guaranteed to a filmmaker under the First. Stephanie stands by ‘Under the Gun’ and will not stop her work on behalf of victims of gun violence

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit for Gun Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

Scientology has long had an odd relationship with American celebrities. Some famous adherents include Kirstie Alley, Elisabeth Moss, Greta Van Sustern, John Travolta, and Tom Cruise. The Church of Scientology is also well known for using its substantial coffers to defend itself through litigation. It is within this context that HBO recently announced that it would be creating a documentary about the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers. The company, probably wisely, is lawyering up before the release.

The book on which the documentary is based is called “Going Clear” and is written by Lawrence Wright. It focuses on the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and the current leader, a man named David Miscavige, with particular emphasis on Scientology’s relationship to Hollywood and American celebrities–specifically John Travolta and Tom Cruise, as they are arguably two of the most famous celebrities in the religion.

The book makes some broad accusations, including abuse allegations against the church. The Church of Scientology, of course, flatly denies those claims. When the book was released, spokeswoman Karin Pouw released a statement said that:

The stories of alleged physical abuse are lies concocted by a small group of self-corroborating confessed liars. The hard evidence clearly shows that no such conduct ever occurred and that in fact there is evidence that shows it did NOT occur.

HBO claims that it has probably 160 different lawyers looking into the film–it needs to make sure that it is airtight before airing, because the company doesn’t particularly want to owe the Church of Scientology any money.

Media companies and media personalities have in the past tussled with the Church of Scientology, and not just in the courtroom. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, did a controversial episode entitled “Trapped in the Closet” in 2005 that made fun of the religion. The episode also makes fun of Cruise and Travolta (particularly rumors about their respective sexual orientations) and calls the religion a cult, which is pretty tame as far as South Park episodes go.

The Scientologists reacted very, very poorly. The religious sect started basically stalking and surveilling Stone and Parker, attempting to find something incriminating. Marty Rathburn, who used to be involved with the Church of Scientology, explained the kinds of things they would do to Stone and Parker, saying:

Phone records. Bank records. Personal letters that expose some kind of vulnerability. They’ll read stuff into the kind of alcohol you’re drinking and how much. Prescriptions. They’ll figure out your diet. They can find out a lot about you through your trash.

Back to “Going Clear” and its corresponding documentary. The Church of Scientology has already managed to mess with it a bit. The book was never released in the United Kingdom because the publishers were afraid that it would lead to a lawsuit. However, HBO truly has every intention of moving forward with the movie plan–160 lawyers and all.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HBO Battles Scientology Over New Documentary appeared first on Law Street.