Thomas Dalton:
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why
they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything
potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.
It would be impossible for anything on the audio recording to be taken as
libel, as there were no written words. Slanderous? Possibly.
However, I was particularly careful to choose my words. I am a believer in
the legal doctrine that "truth" is the best defense against a prosecution
for defamation. The broadcaster in this case would be largely immune to
prosecution, anyway, as my words were presented as my own, and it would be
extremely difficult to present legally that my words reflected the opinion
of the broadcaster.
Thomas, weak as your argument may be, it does kind of underscore my point.
Slanderous speech "could be a problem" -- but how will we ever know, if no
concrete reason has ever been presented for the deliberate suppression of
the raw audio file, and refusal to turn it over to any of a number of
independent audio technicians who could do the job in 24 hours?
--
Gregory Kohs