[wideawake]

They are arguing no malice, just an honest mistake based on ambiguous evidence.

[Uncle Chip]

They fired several several people over that “honest mistake”.

[kevkrom]

They are arguing no malice, just an honest mistake based on ambiguous evidence.

Editing tape to foist a false impression on the public is an "honest mistake"?

[PghBaldy]

Thanks. I wonder who edited the 911 tape to make him look racist, I think that was MSNBC.

[Cboldt]

-- They are arguing no malice, just an honest mistake based on ambiguous evidence. --

Heh. The legal standard is "actual malice" which has nothing to do with malice, in fact. The term of art "actual malice" exists when the publisher puts out something it knew or should have known was false. I'd say doctoring a tape satisfies that, easily. The question then is whether or not the doctoring creates a bad image of the person presented. I'd say that is easily met in this case, too.

Nelson has been overturned on appeal before, not that she cares. The lawyer in the defamation case isn't the same lawyer who took the defense side of the murder rap.