Paramount Global has asked a federal judge to toss President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, alleging Trump’s legal effort was designed to “punish” CBS for editorial decisions — a violation of protected free speech rights.
In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed Thursday, Paramount argued that Trump and fellow plaintiff Rep. Ronny Jackson, a Texas Republican, “seek to punish a news organization for constitutionally protected editorial judgments they do not like.”
“They not only ask for $20 billion in damages but also seek an order directing how a news organization may exercise its editorial judgment in the future,” Paramount said in the court filing. “The 1st Amendment stands resolutely against these demands.”
First Amendment experts have long said Paramount had a solid defense in the “60 Minutes” case because news producers and editors have wide latitude to decide what material to broadcast as long as the information aired isn’t distorted.
Nonetheless, Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone has agitated to settle the lawsuit with Trump to help clear a path for her company’s sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The $8-billion transaction requires the approval of federal regulators.
The effort to try to settle the case was met with loud protests by CBS News journalists who insist they did nothing wrong in the editing of last fall’s “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Paramount has separately agreed to have a federal mediator review the case. It was facing a Friday deadline to file the motion to dismiss.
Last fall, CBS invited Trump for an interview with “60 Minutes,” but he backed out. The network went forward with a broadcast that featured Harris.
CBS News has acknowledged that it aired a partial answer by Harris to a question about the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war during CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker’s October interview.
The issue became controversial after CBS aired different portions of Harris’ answer on two news programs.
Trump has alleged the network deceptively edited a “60 Minutes” interview with Harris to try to tip the election in her favor. Last month, he amended his initial $10-billion lawsuit — increasing the alleged damages to $20 billion — in an attempt to steer the legal argument away from 1st Amendment grounds by claiming that “60 Minutes” was a fraudulent product foisted on the people of Texas.
Trump filed the suit in Amarillo, Texas, where it would be heard by a Trump-appointed judge. Paramount separately asked the judge to move the case to federal court in New York, where CBS is based, if he declined to dismiss the claims.
CBS producers have long insisted that they quoted Harris accurately.
The Federal Communications Commission has separately opened an investigation into claims of news distortion stemming from the “60 Minutes” broadcast. Video of the unedited interview, released last month by FCC Chairman Brendon Carr and separately by CBS, supported the network’s account.
But the release also showed that Harris gave a jumbled answer, which was clipped to its most succinct and cogent sentence.
Conservatives have criticized CBS for not airing more of Harris’ response. Trump described Harris’ response as a “word salad.”
News organizations routinely edit interviews, removing extraneous words and redundant phrases. The practice has long been accepted — as long as the edits don’t change the context or meaning.
Paramount defended the edits.
“The answers that aired on each news show were simply excerpts of a single answer Vice President Harris gave to a single question, and taken together, viewers heard virtually all of Harris’ answer,” Paramount argued in the motion.
First Amendment experts have said Trump would have had a difficult time arguing the “60 Minutes” interview harmed him because the question did not reference him. Instead, it was about the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war.
Trump’s updated complaint included CBS’ parent company, Paramount Global, as a defendant and added Jackson, Trump’s former doctor, as a plaintiff because he lives in Texas, where the case was filed.
Trump’s amended filing also tried to steer the case away from 1st Amendment grounds. Instead, Trump asserts the case should not hinge on free speech arguments because CBS allegedly had business motivations to make Harris appear stronger.
