Iraq Veteran Sues Moore Over 9/11 Film

[Dragon Star]

BOSTON (AP) — A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

Link
Bout time that propaganda ass hole got what was coming to him...

Edited to fix outdated link. -Lance

[Gullible Jones]

W00t. I hope he gets his fat ass sued off.

[Мастер]

Well, I have no intention of springing to the defence of Michael Moore. But, if it was a television interview, does MM need the guy's permission to use it in the film?

[Dragon Star]

While using select pieces to promote propaganda? Probably...

[Мастер]

While using select pieces to promote propaganda? Probably...

I'm not really sure how these things work. By I suspect that when he consented to the interview, he agreed to a fairly standard set of conditions, which would include what the network can do with the interview. If those conditions said that the network can do whatever they bloody well feel like with the interview, well then...

But that's my conjecture. Does anyone know for sure how these things actually work?

[Dragon Star]

Well, you can pretty much take anyone to court for about any reason, it might be a dead end road, and might not, we will just have to wait and see. Personally I hope the guy takes Moore down...if he does indeed have a case.

[Enzo]

Oh please. Even if the guy prevails in such a suit, it won't "take Moore down." How many times has the National Enquirer been sued and they lost? Mighty sums of dollars lost. And yet, there they are in every grocery store checkout lane in the land.

Not only that, Michael Moore doesn't make the movie, Michael Moore's production company makes the movie. SO even if you can sue the production company out of existence, it doesn't do much more to Moore than inconvenience him.

I would be quite surprised if his companies didn't carry substantial liability insurance in any case.

I really doubt there is much of a case there. yes, that is my opinion as a layman, not a legal judgement. The guy has to show he was damaged in some way by this snippet of film. Just not liking it doesn't constitute damage. otherwise you could sue a woman who declines your offer of a date of she does it in front of others. When the snippet was filmed, the guy granted permission for it to be aired in public.

[Lonewulf]

I really doubt there is much of a case there. yes, that is my opinion as a layman, not a legal judgement. The guy has to show he was damaged in some way by this snippet of film. Just not liking it doesn't constitute damage. otherwise you could sue a woman who declines your offer of a date of she does it in front of others. When the snippet was filmed, the guy granted permission for it to be aired in public.

I dunno. His message was intentionally garbled for the sole purposes of showing him saying something he really didn't. It goes beyond simply, "I just don't like it". It's more like, "He's claiming I said something that I didn't", of which he did not give permission for. I don't think that that's what he agreed to, or what was in any contract he signed -- that was specifically noted in the article.

IMO, that should be punishable. As for if it really is, well, we'll see how the case goes through

Furthermore, as for "bringing Moore down", if this case goes through and succeeds, it would send a pretty strong message across to people like Moore. If it fails, well... it can still send a message.

[Lance]

You don't have to give your permission for your words or image to be used by journalists. If you did, we'd never see all those "hand on the camera lens" or "coat-covered perp walk" shots the news is so fond of showing.

If Moore's film (which I have not yet seen) is either journalism as well, or the excerpts fall under "fair use", which seems likely as I understand it, then the guy has no case.

I have no opinion of Michael Moore one way or the other. I've only seen his file "Roger and Me", which I thought was "ok". I have Fahrenheit 9/11 recorded but I haven't watched it yet.

[Dragon Star]

I really doubt there is much of a case there. yes, that is my opinion as a layman, not a legal judgement. The guy has to show he was damaged in some way by this snippet of film. Just not liking it doesn't constitute damage. otherwise you could sue a woman who declines your offer of a date of she does it in front of others. When the snippet was filmed, the guy granted permission for it to be aired in public.

I dunno. His message was intentionally garbled for the sole purposes of showing him saying something he really didn't. It goes beyond simply, "I just don't like it". It's more like, "He's claiming I said something that I didn't", of which he did not give permission for. I don't think that that's what he agreed to, or what was in any contract he signed -- that was specifically noted in the article.

IMO, that should be punishable. As for if it really is, well, we'll see how the case goes through

Furthermore, as for "bringing Moore down", if this case goes through and succeeds, it would send a pretty strong message across to people like Moore. If it fails, well... it can still send a message.

Exactly my point, well said.

As for it actually bringing Moore down, well thats not exactly what I meant. What I mean by that is if I take you out on the street and kick your ass all over the place, and then I stop, are you likely to keep on fighting? It's doubtful because you just embarrassed the hell out of yourself, and don't want to do it anymore. Perhaps the same could apply for Moore.

[Lonewulf]

You don't have to give your permission for your words or image to be used by journalists. If you did, we'd never see all those "hand on the camera lens" or "coat-covered perp walk" shots the news is so fond of showing.

Journalists usually lose reputation when they're caught being dishonest. If Moore truly was dishonest in this case, I hope that that dishonesty comes out.

Strong advocates of Moore probably would be unaffected, however.

[MM_Dandy]

Well, how about similar cases? Has there been any successful claims by Apollo astronauts against people like Bart Sibrel? I'm sure it would be easy to find instances in his films where snippets of an interview between an astronaut and some other journalist are taken out of context.

(BTW, why is this thread in The En[strike]lighten[/strike]raged Ones?)

[Lance]

(BTW, why is this thread in The En[strike]lighten[/strike]raged Ones?)

Maybe Current events and Politics would be better?

[Dragon Star]

well I figured thats where it would end up after a strong political discussion over Moore, but feel free to move it.

*Fixed spelling

[taks]

Well, how about similar cases? Has there been any successful claims by Apollo astronauts against people like Bart Sibrel? I'm sure it would be easy to find instances in his films where snippets of an interview between an astronaut and some other journalist are taken out of context.[/b]?)

no, and for good reason. they don't want to give sibrel the credibility a lawsuit would bring. at least, suing him would send the "he's worth the effort" message, and they would rather just marginalize him. this is what has happened as only a very fringe group of people buy into his nonsense.

michael moore, OTOH, makes millions off of his near-lies.

taks

[umop ap!sdn]

feel free to move it.

Done.

[Dragon Star]

Thank you umop. :wink:

michael moore, OTOH, makes millions off of his near-lies.

taks

Yea...I hate people that can just do things like that, could you imagine bringing yourself to lie to everyone in the name of politics just for money, knowing you will be hated by those that have a brain?

[Enzo]

By that standard then we ought to be able to sue Fox NewsChannel out of existence. Taking things out of context is a time honored "tradition" in the media games. Do you honestly think Michael Moore is doing anything different than Sean Hannity does every single day? WHat ever became of the total fabrications of the "Swift Boat Veterans?" Nothing.

This is a big non-event. OK, so the guy doesn't like being used. Get in line. ANyone who speaks in public runs the risk of being taken out of context.

If I say to a TV reporter, "I'd vote for Bush when pigs fly," I'd be a fool to believe I couldn't show up on the screen quoted accurately as saying, "I'd vote for Bush." If they chopped up my words and made a sentence I never uttered, I might have a case. But to broadcast only part of a longer statement is not damaging. I may not like it, and it may offend your sensibilities, but them's the breaks.

My letters to the editor of the local paper are published on a regular basis. Once in a while someone from the other side will respond and mis-characterize what I said. Pisses me off, but that is the end of it. Ther is no legal recourse.

[Dragon Star]

Look at it this way...News today is nothing more the entertainment, but Moore is an actual political film, there is a difference.

[Enzo]

Excuse me? The "news" programs on TV are "nothing more than entertainment," but a film that Moore produced to be shown on theaters is not entertainment because it carries a political message? That's ridiculous.

The "news" shows on TV are presented as though to report on world affairs. One would hope they held a modicum of truth. The Moore film was never presented as anything BUT a political statement. It was never presented to be an unbiased in depth accounting of anything. it was meant to be thought provoking, and yes, entertaining.

Are you really suggesting that a film shown in a movie house should be held to a higher standard of accuracy than the network news?

By that way of thinking then, it would be OK for Fox news to say the Kennedy assassination was just a cover up and everyone is lying, but Oliver Stone's movie about it that says the same thing should facce lawsuits? Or the DaVinci code movie should get Ron Howard thrown into court for saying things about the Catholic church that are not true, but the network news guys could say the same things and it would be OK because it is nothing more than entertainment?

In my opinion, your premise needs some work.

[Dragon Star]

What I mean is that the majority of the population watches the News, but has has grown to not take it to seriously, but a film is totally different. If Fox News made a movie about a certain political point that was incorrect, you bet your ass everyone would bitch at them...but on TV no one gives a shit. TV is no longer serious, but Movies are.

[Enzo]

No, that is exactly backwards. Movies are NOT serious. They are entertainment vehicles. There has been this moronic hue and cry about the DaVinci code. The author of the book says, "It is just fiction." The producer of the movie says, "It is just a movie, it is fiction." The director of the film says, "It is just a movie, entertainment, fiction." The actors in the film all say, "It is just a movie, not any more than fiction." And yet the unwashed masses are all out trying to fathom how can the story be true???? Because a certain stripe through the populace believes anything on the screen, that doesn't make the movie a serious message.

People watch the news HOPING to find out what is going on in the world around them. Many of us are disappointed with the integrity that is missing, but I don't know anyone who looks at even Fox and decides it is TOTAL fiction intended ONLY as entertainment. Sure they want their news to be entertaining to watch, but they also intend for us to believe what they tell us. Even if they knowingly shade the truth, they intend to be taken seriously, even if no one does.

Contrastingly, the movies are not made with the intent we would believe they are factual. They want them to appear plausible, credible, realistic. But they are fiction nonetheless.

[Dragon Star]

Really? And what of this DaVenci Code? Nothing but bullshit book, not much fame, made a movie and everyone is like "OMG Frigging Jesus Babies!" Over nothing, was that not just a movie? It was a damn joke and and look how serious it turned out. Tell me again that movies can't be serious. Hey, what about the Mar's rovers movie, that was a joke right? Nothing serious about that eh? Common, yea right.

TV is you sitting on your ass not caring what really comes but when you drop by that window and pay your $7 and drive to a theater plop in your chair and devote your complete and undivided attention...you might find things a little more serious if you ask me. Someone dies in the news...who gives a shit, main character dies in a movie and you cry. Ironic ain't it?

[Enzo]

You are confusing issues. There was a "serious" uproar about the DaVinci Codes, but the movie was not intended to be taken as serious scholarship - it was fiction. Yes, there are morons who watch the movie and think it is real. That was not the intent of those who made the movie. I may look like a Hell's Angel, but that doesn't mean I am one.

If you made a movie about Santa CLaus and portrayed him as a tall thin Muslim along the lines of Osama Bin Laden, there would be a serious uproar. But the movie would not be considered a serious work.

A MArs Rover DOCUMENTARY would be intended as an educational film, and we would expect it to be accurate, and we would take it seriously. A movie called the Three Stooges Go To Mars wopuld not be expected to be serious nor to be taken that way.

Yes, you are right, if a TV show sucks, I can turn the channel or go mow the lawn, and so what. If I shell out $7 for a movie and it sucks I will be more upset about it than I was over the TV show. That doesn't make the movie serious. That only means I take my personal efforts at entertaining myself seriously.

And as to folks losing their lives. If some character in a cop show gets shot and dies, you are right, I don't care. When I see on the local TV news that a friend of mine was killed in an accident on the highway, you can bet I am saddened by it. DOn't give a shit, my ass. When I see two young high school girls from the area were killed by a drunk driver - happens far too often - I may not feel a direct connection if I don't know them, but I stop and watch, and I feel bad for those families. When I see the devastation from Katrina, I feel sad for those people. I then act on it by contacting those I know who might have been affected. I want to know they are OK. Even around the world, I felt sorry for the people who were killed or hurt by the tsunami. AS far as I am concerned, that is serious stuff on the news.

The main character in a movie dies? Sorry, I don't care, and certainly won't cry over it. I am not an emotional basket case who gets that tied up in a motion picture.


So we can say a movie was serious, as in it was meant to be a scholarly analysis of something. Or we can say a movie was serious in that it caused a big reaction. But those are separate and different meanings of the word serious. You cannot interchange the two sorts of meanings.

You can say you did some serious partying.
You can say you had a serious illness.
You can say you had a serious discussion with your parents.

Do you think all those seriouses mean the same thing?

I've kicked this horse long enough, and you seem to be getting defensive, so I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.

[Dragon Star]

Your right, my apologies.