If it’s that easy why doesn’t everyone with an “uncomfortable” cut just claim they have a lawyer? I can’t imagine word hasn’t gotten around to other TCCs.
I would be very surprised if the TCCs (and probably everyone else who appears on the show) haven't signed some sort of waiver of legal claims against CMT arising out of their appearance on
the show. These types of waivers are very common, and make it difficult to sue.
*legal sidebar. This is just some musing by me. It is not legal advice and in no way substitutes for a consultation with a lawyer*
However, agreeing to a waiver does not make it impossible to sue in extenuating circumstances--if a court finds the person or company covered by the waiver was so incredibly or "grossly" negligent that no reasonable person could have imagined it when signing the waiver, it will throw out the waiver and let a lawsuit proceed. For example, when you buy a lift ticket at a ski resort, the fine print on the back will say something along the lines that by buying and using this ticket, you waive your right to sue the owner of the ski resort. So someone who is skiing and happens to fall and break their leg can't sue. That person might have some possible legal arguments--the snow coverage was thin and the ski resort should have made more snow or closed off the trail!----but a court is extremely unlikely to find that kind of claim overrides the waiver. But say the ski resort is doing construction and forgets to close a trail impacted by the construction, and in fact lists the trail as "open" on a sign by the ski lifts, and someone skis down it and falls in a big hole from the construction project and gets injured. Or say the ski resort has a mountain-top lodge that serves delicious hot chocolate, but the power goes out in that lodge, so the ski resort decides to make big vats of hot chocolate in the lodge at the bottom of the mountain, and transport them up to the top using the ski lift, which is definitely not designed for hot chocolate transportation, so one of the vats tips over and spills out, scalding an unfortunate skier below. These two people--in particular the hot chocolate victim--would likely be able to sue, because the court would throw out the waiver in those circumstances. Being scalded by boiling hot chocolate raining down from a ski lift is definitely not the kind of accident one would reasonably anticipate when waiving claims against a ski resort, nor is getting hurt skiing down a trail that suddenly turns into an open construction site.
So--back to reality TV. A person appearing on a reality TV show has likely signed a waiver that they agree not to sue for defamation of character arising over things appearing on the show, and that they understand the TV show is edited for dramatic effect, and thus what is portrayed on the show will not include all the details and may in fact portray events differently from how they occurred to some degree. So it would be very hard for someone to sue for defamation arising out of airing a clip of them on the show, even if it's heavily edited.
However, the waiver doesn't cover every lawsuit in all situations. It can't cover the show straight up lying with absolutely zero basis in reality. So if they cut someone for bad dancing and didn't show the cut, and then straight up lied on the next show and said "[X person] was cut because she freaked out and screamed at Kelli and trashed her office" that person could sue even if she signed a waiver, because that's just a complete lie and never happened--the waiver doesn't cover CMT actively making up false stories and airing them.
Re: TCC candidates who may have committed crimes--this gets into sticky territory, legally. Falsely implying that someone committed a crime when they did not, or implying that someone committed a worse crime than the one they were actually convicted of, is very serious in defamation law. A lawsuit from a TCC saying the show falsely implied she committed a worse crime than she did might be allowed to proceed, despite the TCC having signed a waiver. Of course, a media organization can't be sued for truthfully reporting that someone was charged with a crime, and/or truthfully reporting that someone was convicted of a crime, but it starts to get into sensitive territory that has to be handled carefully. I can see CMT's lawyers being entirely unconcerned about most threats to sue, but sitting up and taking notice of a demand letter from a lawyer representing a TCC who got kicked out because she was charged with and/or convicted of a crime, because it's getting into territory where they would actually have to defend the lawsuit, and not rely on it getting thrown out of court because the TCC signed a waiver. They would probably win a lawsuit, so long as the show was truthful, but defamation suits often have to go to trial and can't be resolved on motion because there are a lot of questions of fact, so they can be expensive. The cost/benefit analysis of showing a clip about a TCC committing a crime would in many (but not in all) cases lead to legal stepping in and saying "Don't air this."
So basically CMT's lawyers would probably laugh off most threats to sue, but might pay attention to threats of certain types of suits that they think they might lose, or that they think would lead to an expensive and lengthy legal proceeding.
*end legal sidebar*
