Michael Moore being sued for lying in his movie - Shocker!

[fossten]

Iraq War Amputee Sues Michael Moore for Misrepresenting Views
Posted by Greg Sheffield on May 31, 2006 - 11:53.

The New York Post reports on a double-amputee veteran from the Iraq war who is suing Michael Moore for $85 million for taking out of context a statement he made to NBC News. The clip was shown in the film "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

Damon wasn't expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug.

"I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is," said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -"Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."

 

[TheDude]

85 million? Come on now, someone is just after money... Unless Moore edited his comment and changed his wording somehow, I'm not sure this guy has a case.

 

[fossten]

85 million? Come on now, someone is just after money... Unless Moore edited his comment and changed his wording somehow, I'm not sure this guy has a case.

And you're basing this on which legal precedent exactly, Mr. Lawyer?

I'm not usually a fan of large litigation either, but I have to admit that I hope he wins.

They'll probably settle, although I'd want to see a trial so Moore could be discredited. That would be more revealing than a settlement would, to have a public trial where all the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 are exposed. Plaintiff attorneys would have a field day with that. Even if the guy lost, it'd be worth it to see Moore squirm on the stand.

 

[raVeneyes]

He really hasn't a case period. The use of the video is covered under freedom of speech and has been verified in landmark cases like the larry flint case and others where the supreme court has ruled several times that speech is protected particularly in cases of satirical criticism and political commentary

 

[fossten]

He really hasn't a case period. The use of the video is covered under freedom of speech and has been verified in landmark cases like the larry flint case and others where the supreme court has ruled several times that speech is protected particularly in cases of satirical criticism and political commentary

I disagree. Freedom of speech ends where libel and defamation begins, and you'd better believe that his lawyer is going to make a case for libel here. This isn't a suit about Moore's movie as much as it's about this guy being abused.

He may lose, but you can't say he doesn't have a case. If the lawyer can prove that Moore twisted the video interview in a libelous and/or defamatory manner, he could have him on both counts.

Keep in mind that this will most likely be a jury trial, with the arrogant, fat b*stard rich guy Moore on one side, and the prosthetic-limbed, non-rich military hero on the other. The best chance Moore has is for his lawyer to get the case dismissed, and that will depend on which judge they get. I suspect the plaintiff's lawyer knows just where to file this case so it will be held over for trial.

 

[TheDude]

And you're basing this on which legal precedent exactly, Mr. Lawyer?

I'm not usually a fan of large litigation either, but I have to admit that I hope he wins.

They'll probably settle, although I'd want to see a trial so Moore could be discredited. That would be more revealing than a settlement would, to have a public trial where all the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 are exposed. Plaintiff attorneys would have a field day with that. Even if the guy lost, it'd be worth it to see Moore squirm on the stand.

On the fact that it isn't illegal to use something said in public, especially in verbatim. Your article wasn't clear; did Moore change/edit what he said?
You're the lawyer or studying to be one, you tell me.

You only hope he wins because you dislike Moore, not because he should win under the law.

This won't go to court, he's betting that Moore and anyone else involved in the lawsuit will settle and throw him a bone. I doubt Moore will want to appear in court next to a disabled vet.

 

[raVeneyes]

I doubt Moore will want to appear in court next to a disabled vet.

I'm willing to bet it's exactly the type of publicity Moore's been looking for.

 

[TheDude]

I'm willing to bet it's exactly the type of publicity Moore's been looking for.

You really think so? Not sure a double-amputee thats pro-war/pro-Bush would help his cause.

 

[fossten]

The point you're missing is that Moore made millions of dollars off a Crockumentary where he exploited this guy and who knows how many others, while fabricating a web of lies denigrating and besmirching the President, the intel community, and the military. He deserves to get his arse handed to him, whether I like him or not.

You also err in defending Moore, who is known by most as a radical left-wing extremist who hates America and conservatives and will lie in order to make money. I saw him debate O'Reilly after his movie came out and it was shameful, not just how deliberate he was, but how idiotic his arguments were. Anybody who sides with him is either a leftwack or a kool-aid drinker, and you guys know it.

 

[fossten]

On the fact that it isn't illegal to use something said in public, especially in verbatim. Your article wasn't clear; did Moore change/edit what he said?
You're the lawyer or studying to be one, you tell me.

You only hope he wins because you dislike Moore, not because he should win under the law.

This won't go to court, he's betting that Moore and anyone else involved in the lawsuit will settle and throw him a bone. I doubt Moore will want to appear in court next to a disabled vet.

He didn't change what he said. I don't have the details, but I suspect that he did what he did throughout whole movie: Arranged narration around the interview in a magic act to make his quote appear to be anti-Bush and anti-war, which probably made the soldier look like he was being critical of Bush. Who knows, he may have gotten flak from his friends or relatives over it and wants to set the record straight.

There are nuances to libel and slander laws, just as there are nuances to freedom of speech laws. Regardless of what your particular arguments are, Deville, this case will be decided (outside of a settlement) by either a judge (motion to dismiss) or a jury (trial). It hasn't been decided yet, but neither you nor Raveneyes are in a position to decide whether this guy has a case. That's for the judge hearing motions.

It would be interesting to hear if Moore offers to settle. That would indicate his unwillingness to have his lies exposed in a public forum. What I do find interesting is that neither of you are defending the movie as being "factually accurate", or even a reasonable facsimile. It appears that you guys are accepting the premise that the movie is a bunch of yak manure.

 

[Calabrio]

This guy doesn't want to win the case.
But he does want to make it known what kind of man Michael Moore is. He wasn't to make it public just how dishonest and deceptive his style of propoganda really is. And I'm sure he'd also like to have his reputation back after having been completely mischaracterized by Moore.

He can't win the case unless he shows damages of some kind. That's unlikely. But he can get publicity, and that's the real reward in this story.

Now, do any of the fans of Michael Moore care to defend his film making style. This isn't the first person to come forward with a story like this, and I doubt it will be the last. How many people will it take before some of you guys acknowledge Michael Moore movies are little more than deceptive propoganda films that disregard all truth infavor of ideological brainwashing..

 

[raVeneyes]

What I do find interesting is that neither of you are defending the movie as being "factually accurate", or even a reasonable facsimile. It appears that you guys are accepting the premise that the movie is a bunch of yak manure.

Now, do any of the fans of Michael Moore care to defend his film making style. This isn't the first person to come forward with a story like this, and I doubt it will be the last. How many people will it take before some of you guys acknowledge Michael Moore movies are little more than deceptive propoganda films that disregard all truth infavor of ideological brainwashing..

I haven't ever seen a Michael Moore film, but from interviews that I've seen with him and the rash of commentaries about him, I'd have to say his motivations seem to be more on the "say something to get a reaction" than on the "factual reporting" side of things.

Keep in mind that in a free society those that say things just to get a reaction are just as valuable as those who report the truth...the more information that is out there, the better conclusions can be drawn.

Michael Moore reminds me of a liberal Rush Limbaugh, without the talk show.

 

[stang99x]

I saw this thread on another forum. I hope the guy bankrupts Micheal Moron. In other news, Moore releases new press photo for immediate use:

 

[Calabrio]

I haven't ever seen a Michael Moore film, but from interviews that I've seen with him and the rash of commentaries about him, I'd have to say his motivations seem to be more on the "say something to get a reaction" than on the "factual reporting" side of things.

Keep in mind that in a free society those that say things just to get a reaction are just as valuable as those who report the truth...the more information that is out there, the better conclusions can be drawn.

What you're saying might be true, but it doesn't apply to Michael Moore. It is one thing to say thing designed to generate a response or stimulate debate. It is an entirely different thing to slickly package things that are absolutely untrue, and push those on the public under the guise that they are fact.

And while as more information is available, people are better able to draw conclusions may be true, Michael Moore undermines this by injecting FALSE information into the debate. This makes it more difficult to draw accurate conclusions.

Michael Moore reminds me of a liberal Rush Limbaugh, without the talk show.

They couldn't be more different. You're statement demonstrates two things-
1. You aren't familiar with Limbaugh.
2. You aren't familiar with Moore.

 

[raVeneyes]

1. You aren't familiar with Limbaugh.
2. You aren't familiar with Moore.

Hmm...quite true, I'm unfamiliar with the full essence of both, but they're both loud mouthed wing-nuts with weight problems and obvious emotional issues related to a need to be liked.

 

[DixieRambler]

Damn! Micheal Moore in green suit. Great pic..........looks just like him!

 

[Calabrio]

Hmm...quite true, I'm unfamiliar with the full essence of both, but they're both loud mouthed wing-nuts with weight problems and obvious emotional issues related to a need to be liked.

No. That would be incorrect also.

Limbaugh is no longer overweight, nor does he have a need to be liked. If he did, don't you think he would crave the love and attention from the media? In reality, he's despised by the media.

The wing nut comment isn't worth discussing.

 

[raVeneyes]

Limbaugh is no longer overweight, nor does he have a need to be liked. If he did, don't you think he would crave the love and attention from the media? In reality, he's despised by the media.

Ok, maybe I'm thinking Limbaugh 1996-2004? I don't really keep up with his weight problems or progress in therapy, sorry.

 

[fossten]

Michael Moore reminds me of a liberal Rush Limbaugh, without the talk show.

:bowrofl: Which just proves that you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh!

 

[raVeneyes]

Michael Moore reminds me of a liberal Rush Limbaugh, without the talk show.

:bowrofl: Which just proves that you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh!

Hrm...seems that I'm not the only one to draw the connection between Limbaugh and Moore:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0602/p01s02-ussc.html
"'Message documentaries' have of late become the liberal answer to conservative talk radio - ideology-driven propaganda with an annoying habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. "

 

[fossten]

Hrm...seems that I'm not the only one to draw the connection between Limbaugh and Moore:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0602/p01s02-ussc.html
"'Message documentaries' have of late become the liberal answer to conservative talk radio - ideology-driven propaganda with an annoying habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. "

I read that article, and I didn't see that quote contained therein. Nevertheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's really in there, I don't see how one obscure generic quote that doesn't even MENTION Rush by name somehow links him directly to Michael Moore. Coupled with your admission that you don't even listen to Rush, you have very little credibility left with which to back up your bogus statement.

The quote itself is ambiguous, not really specifying which party is playing fast and loose with the facts. Could just as easily be referring to Moore, which would make more sense.

By the way, Limbaugh is rated by the Pugh Institute as being 98.6% accurate.

 

[TheDude]

By the way, Limbaugh is rated by the Pugh Institute as being 98.6% accurate.

That just happens to be the same temperature as the human body, 98.6* Fahrenheit (37*C)...Hmmm, I smell a conspiracy.

 

[fossten]

That just happens to be the same temperature as the human body, 98.6* Fahrenheit (37*C)...Hmmm, I smell a conspiracy.

I'm waiting for the fabulous explanation of this one, bud. Breath is bated.