Virginia Citizens Defense League v. Couric
910 F.3d 780 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Virginia law, a statement is not defamatory unless it is reasonably capable of a meaning that would harm one's reputation in the common estimation of mankind, such as by holding them up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt; merely making someone appear stumped by a nuanced policy question through misleading editing does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- Journalist Katie Couric and filmmaker Stephanie Soechtig produced a documentary on gun policy, 'Under the Gun,' which generally favored regulation.
- To present an opposing viewpoint, the filmmakers invited and interviewed nine members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a gun-rights organization.
- The interviewees included Daniel L. Hawes, an attorney focused on firearms law, and Patricia Webb, a gun store owner.
- During the interview, Couric asked: 'If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?'
- In reality, several VCDL members, including Hawes and Webb, immediately provided detailed responses that lasted for approximately six minutes.
- Before the formal interview, filmmakers recorded footage of the VCDL members sitting silently for several seconds while technicians calibrated the recording equipment.
- The final version of the film edited out the members' actual six-minute response and instead inserted approximately nine seconds of the silent footage, making them appear unable to answer Couric's question.
- After public backlash, Couric issued a statement admitting the segment was 'misleading' and did 'not accurately represent their response.'
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia Citizens Defense League, Daniel L. Hawes, and Patricia Webb (plaintiffs) filed a defamation lawsuit against Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig, and associated media companies (defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does selectively editing an interview to falsely portray subjects as silent and stumped in response to a question constitute defamation under Virginia law?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Motz
No, selectively editing an interview to portray subjects as silent and stumped does not constitute defamation under Virginia law. To be actionable, a statement must be both false and defamatory, meaning it tends to so harm a person's reputation as to lower them in the estimation of the community or subject them to scorn, ridicule, or contempt. Here, the edited footage, while misleading, does not rise to this level. At worst, it suggests that several VCDL members did not have a ready-made answer to a complex policy question. This does not imply professional incompetence for Hawes as an attorney or Webb as a gun store owner, as the question was not central to their professional duties. Furthermore, viewing the clip in the context of the entire interview segment, where the members answered other questions capably, a reasonable viewer would not conclude they were ignorant or incompetent. The term 'ridiculous' in Virginia's defamation standard refers to severe reputational harm akin to scorn or contempt, not mere embarrassment or awkwardness.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for defamation claims and affirms the judiciary's 'gatekeeping' role in dismissing claims that do not allege a statement reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. It illustrates that even intentionally misleading editing by filmmakers may not be legally actionable if the resulting portrayal, while unflattering, fails to injure a person's reputation in a legally significant way. The ruling provides significant protection for media and documentary filmmakers, drawing a line between poor journalistic ethics and legally cognizable reputational harm, and clarifies that public or media reaction to a controversy does not determine its legal defamatory capacity.
Unlock the full brief for Virginia Citizens Defense League v. Couric