Connect with us

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

News

Obama responds to Trump sharing racist AI video depicting him as an ape

Published

on

Obama responds to Trump sharing racist AI video depicting him as an ape

Former President Barack Obama addresses the Obama Foundation’s 2024 Democracy Forum on Dec. 05, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois.

Scott Olson/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama has responded to the racist video posted by President Donald Trump’s social media account earlier this month.

During an interview with YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen, Obama said many Americans “find this behavior deeply troubling.”

“There doesn’t seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office,” Obama said in the interview, which was posted on YouTube Saturday.

Advertisement

“There’s this sort of clown show that’s happening in social media and on television,” Obama added, describing much of the noise around Trump’s presidency as a “distraction”.

Obama’s response follows outrage over the video, which depicted Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the clip, saying “please stop the fake outrage.” Trump refused to apologize for the social media post, telling reporters “I didn’t make a mistake” aboard Air Force One.

The video, which was posted at the beginning of Black History Month, has since been deleted. The White House blamed a staffer for “erroneously” posting the video clip.

Obama also shared his thoughts on the immigration crackdown and protests in Minnesota and elsewhere around the country, telling Cohen they have left a good number of American people saying “we’re going to live up to those values that we say we believe in.”

“It is important for us to recognize the unprecedented nature of what ICE was doing in Minneapolis, St. Paul, the way that federal agents, ICE agents were being deployed, without any clear guidelines, training, pulling people out of their homes, using five-year-olds to try to bait their parents, all the stuff that we saw, teargassing crowds simply who were standing there, not breaking any laws,” the 44th president said.

Advertisement

Obama called the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last month “a heartbreaking tragedy” and said it was “a wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.”

He also said that the Trump administration has given explanations for the deaths of Pretti and Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman killed by an immigration agent, “that aren’t informed by any serious investigation.”

Continue Reading

News

A man shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis was charged with assaulting law enforcement. A startling admission ended the case | CNN

Published

on

A man shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis was charged with assaulting law enforcement. A startling admission ended the case | CNN

Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna was on shift in Minneapolis on a Wednesday evening last month, making deliveries as a DoorDash driver, when he realized he was being followed by ICE agents, his attorney said.

He drove home and was tackled by an agent but broke free and ran into the house where his cousin Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis was standing, the attorney said. As he shut the door and was trying to lock it, Sosa-Celis said he was shot in the leg by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

Coming just seven days after a federal agent fatally shot Renee Good, the incident spawned renewed protests and heated clashes with police. An account of the events from the Department of Homeland Security soon after the incident conflicted with the narratives from the two men and their family members.

DHS claimed Sosa-Celis was driving the car and he, Aljorna and another man assaulted the agent before the agent fired his weapon.

The first inkling of the government questioning the DHS account came from the US Department of Justice. In a January 16 court filing supporting criminal charges against the two men, the DOJ asserted Aljorna was the one driving the vehicle.

Advertisement

In a stunning reversal, the Justice Department on Thursday filed a motion seeking to drop criminal charges against the two Venezuelan men. In it, the DOJ said federal prosecutors provided incorrect information to the court, while ICE issued a statement admitting its federal agents made “false statements” under oath.

The two federal agents involved have been placed on administrative leave while the Justice Department investigates their “untruthful statements,” which were revealed by a review of video evidence, ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a statement.

The two officers may be fired and potentially face criminal prosecution, Lyons said.

DOJ’s motion cited “newly discovered evidence” contradicting statements the agency included as the basis for filing criminal charges against the men.

It’s not clear what video evidence was uncovered, described in the motion as “materially inconsistent with the allegations” from federal prosecutors in the charging document. CNN has reached out to DHS for further clarity on the evidence and whether it stands by the initial statement following the shooting but did not hear back. The DOJ declined to comment on the motion when contacted by CNN.

Advertisement

“This was an absolute unreasonable use of force, and the officer was fabricating claims against my client to justify that,” said Aljorna’s attorney, Frederick J. Goetz.

The dismissed case fits into a larger pattern in which the federal government has been quick to release accounts after a shooting by its law enforcement agents, which were later proven to be false, misleading or incomplete, according to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Examples include video evidence after federal agents fatally shot Good and Alex Pretti, which appeared to undermine elements of the government’s accounts of what happened.

Similarly, prosecutors last year filed to drop charges against Marimar Martinez in Chicago, who the government said rammed a federal agent’s vehicle before he shot her several times. A judge, who noted the government’s case included omissions that caused her to tread carefully, dismissed the charges against Martinez last year.

Martinez asked for evidence in the case to be released. When it was put out last week, the evidence bolstered Martinez’s account that hers was the vehicle rammed, not the agent’s. And text messages from the agent showed him bragging about the number of times he shot her. In a news release, the DHS called the shots “defensive fire.”

The shifting narratives from the federal government in the case of Sosa-Celis and Aljorna have further chipped away at the Trump administration’s credibility, as the motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice is a more dramatic admission from federal prosecutors because it indicates they put forth wrong information and means the case cannot be brought back, Honig said.

Advertisement

Lawyers for both Sosa-Celis and Aljorna commended the department’s motion, calling it “extraordinary” and “exceedingly rare” in statements to CNN.

Here’s what we know about the case and how it fell apart:

In a January 15 news release, DHS claimed federal agents were targeting Sosa-Celis in a traffic stop – not Aljorna – as part of an immigration enforcement operation on January 14 when he attempted to evade arrest, crashed into a parked car and tried to flee on foot.

Sosa-Celis allegedly began to “resist and violently assault” one of the officers and the two were in a “struggle on the ground,” then “got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broom stick,” at which point the officer fired a “defensive shot,” DHS said. Two other people came out of a nearby apartment and attacked the officer, the agency said.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem described the men’s actions as “an attempted murder of federal law enforcement.” The agency stood by its initial statement a few days after the shooting when contacted by CNN.

Advertisement

On January 16, however, the Justice Department offered an account painting a different picture of the events in a filing supporting criminal charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna. That document said the driver of the car was Aljorna, who prosecutors said was zigzagging through traffic while agents pursued the vehicle.

Aljorna, the affidavit claimed, hit a light pole before fleeing from the car, with an ICE agent chasing him on foot toward the home. Both Sosa-Celis and Aljorna were accused of hitting one of the agents with a shovel or broom before the agent pointed his weapon at the two men, causing them to run toward the home, the affidavit said.

As Sosa-Celis and Aljorna ran inside, the agent fired one round from his pistol “towards the vicinity” of the two men but at the time, the officer was “uncertain if his shot struck any of them,” the DOJ’s affidavit said.

Aljorna’s attorney told CNN the Trump administration’s claims his client and Sosa-Celis attacked federal agents with a broomstick or shovel “never happened.”

Sosa-Celis, speaking from a hospital room on a livestream video on his Facebook account, described engaging in some sort of struggle with federal agents as he was helping his cousin escape arrest and get inside their shared home.

Advertisement

As Aljorna was being followed in his car, the fatal shooting of Good the week prior was fresh in his mind and he was fearful, according to Goetz, his attorney. Aljorna called his family members, who told him to get home.

Approaching his home, Aljorna lost control of the car due to ice on the roadway and hit a snowbank, Goetz said. Aljorna was then tackled by an ICE agent after running from the car, just 10 feet away from the door, where Sosa-Celis had walked out and called for him to get inside, the attorney said.

Aljorna was able to slip out of his jacket, freeing himself from the agent’s grasp, and ran to his cousin, Goetz said. They both got behind the door and closed it when a shot rang out, he added.

The accounts from the two men were reiterated by their family members in interviews and livestream videos of their 911 calls, which differed from DHS’ statement.

One of them showed a video call made by Sosa-Celis’ partner and reviewed by CNN, frantically describing to family members what she says happened, according to Alicia Celis, Sosa-Celis’ mother, who spoke to CNN.

Advertisement

In one video call, Sosa-Celis’ partner said, “Julio arrived first. They were chasing Alfredo – he had to jump from his car.”

“He ran and they threw themselves on top of him. After, Julio threw open the door, and they shot,” she added.

A different video obtained by CNN shows what was happening outside the home while the family waited inside, revealing agents approaching the home and setting off a flash-bang. Smoke can be seen, and ramming sounds are heard as someone says, “They’re in! There’s more than a dozen of them.”

“He told me, ‘Mom, ICE was chasing me,” Aljorna’s mother Mabel Aljorna later said. “Once we were inside, they shot at Julio,’” she added.

In his livestream from the hospital, Sosa-Celis said, “The shot that was fired happened when my cousin managed to escape, and he entered inside. I closed the door and as I was locking it, I heard the shot, and that’s when I realized I had been shot in the leg.”

Advertisement

Sosa-Celis is “relieved that the federal criminal case is over,” his attorney Robin Wolpert said on his behalf, adding he is “determined to seek justice and hold the ICE officer accountable for his unlawful conduct.”

Confrontations involving federal agents have routinely been captured on video from multiple angles, which later served to discount parts of the government’s narrative of events. Videos from the killing of Renee Good, a mother of three, in her vehicle, raised questions about the federal agent’s tactics and decision to use deadly force.

Similarly, footage showing federal agents killing Alex Pretti revealed the ICU nurse was holding a phone in his right hand, and an officer removing a gun from his back waistband before the shooting. The Trump administration claimed an agent “fired defensive shots” and asserted Pretti was “brandishing” a firearm.

“It’s mind-boggling that DHS continues this pattern of making immediate, definitive statements about what happened that are very quickly disproved by actual evidence,” said senior CNN legal analyst Honig.

Judges across the country who were appointed to the bench by presidents of both political parties have made findings on record about DHS not being forthcoming, truthful or credible, according to Honig.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has faced mounting credibility issues as its immigration crackdown has rolled out in blue cities nationwide. Even as several judges have acknowledged parts of its narratives may be true, others have described the government’s claims in court as “unreliable,” “untethered to the facts” and “simply not credible,” CNN previously reported.

The motion to dismiss the charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna with prejudice is “remarkably unusual,” said Honig. It speaks to how the government has rushed to put out possibly premature statements, which are at times incomplete or inaccurate, only later to be contradicted by emerging facts, he added.

Federal prosecutors are put in a “very difficult position” when they realize later “that something they’ve said to a court is not true,” Honig said, but they nevertheless have a duty to correct the record.

“While judges ordinarily give the Justice Department a lot of deference and a lot of implied credibility, that’s changing now,” he continued. “You have credibility only until you give it away.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Four people on NASA’S Crew-12 arrive at the International Space Station

Published

on

Four people on NASA’S Crew-12 arrive at the International Space Station

In this image from video provided by NASA, a SpaceX Dragon capsule carrying Americans Meir and Jack Hathaway, France’s Sophie Adenot and Russia’s Andrei Fedyaev, approaches the International Space Station for docking on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026.

NASA/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

NASA/AP

The four members of NASA’S SpaceX Crew-12 mission docked at the International Space Station on Saturday afternoon.

The crew blasted off before dawn on Friday morning from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

The Crew-12 mission includes two NASA astronauts, Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, French astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Russian cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev. During their eight-month mission, the crew will conduct scientific research to prepare for human exploration beyond earth’s orbit and enhance food production in space.

Advertisement

“With Crew-12 safely on orbit, America and our international partners once again demonstrated the professionalism, preparation, and teamwork required for human spaceflight,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a statement.

The mission replaces the crew from NASA’s Crew-11 mission, which departed the ISS a month ahead of schedule in January due to a medical evacuation of one of the crew members. Since then, the space station has been operating with a reduced staff of three people — well below it’s typical seven-person staff.

Isaacman also said that NASA is simultaneously making preparations for the 10-day Artemis II mission, which would send a crew of four astronauts around the moon. It’s the first crewed mission to the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972 and is slated to take off as soon as March.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending