Netflix won the clash with the policeman over the hit series.  Judge: We haven’t sunk that low yet

Netflix won the clash with the policeman over the hit series. Judge: We haven’t sunk that low yet

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a retired police officer who accused the Netflix documentary series “Making a Murderer” of falsely crediting him with planting evidence. The ruling argued that Andrew Colborn had failed to show that Netflix or the show’s creators acted with “true premeditation” in creating his portrayal.

Making a Murderer is a documentary series that debuted in December 2015. It told the story of Steven Avery, who was framed by the police for a murder he didn’t commit. The man was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. After 18 years in prison, Avery was acquitted thanks to a thorough DNA test.

As reported by Variety, in 2018 Colborn filed a lawsuit against the creators of the series, claiming that the production made him a laughing stock around the world. He accused the filmmakers of distorting facts, modifying testimonies and omitting key information that adversely affected his image. A retired police officer claims he was wrongly perceived as a corrupt officer who planted evidence against an innocent man.

Netflix won a defamation lawsuit. Judge: We haven’t sunk that low yet

Colborn had to show that the filmmakers knew they were giving false information, which they deliberately disregarded. In the ruling, Judge Brett Ludwig pointed out that the police officer did not meet this condition.

The First Amendment does not guarantee that a public figure like Colborn will retain his status as a hero no matter what the circumstances. But it gives the media an opportunity to put such a man in a much less flattering light,” the judge said.

Colborn found 52 separate cases of alleged defamation of himself on the show. The judge stressed that most of the complaints concerned “media criticism that related to the assessment of the show itself”.

He noted that it could not be shown that some of the statements in the series were specifically about Colborn.

If such criticism of the bureaucracy were treated as defamation, freedom of speech would be reduced to the freedom to praise the government … He may not like the portrayal of Colborn in the series, but it is not enough to prove defamation. (…) If the media could only present public figures from the best side, we would be a country full of caricatures. We haven’t sunk that low yet,” Ludwig added.

Source: Gazeta

You may also like

Immediate Access Pro