Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11 by Amiton

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11

POSTED BY: AMITON
UPDATED: Sunday, June 4, 2006 17:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8391
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

I truly appreciate your posts. And I laughed out loud at: "Or you could try and put all Liberals in to some sort of camp that would 'concentrate' them together."

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:15 AM

RIVER6213

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Liberals invented political correctness, sensitivity trainng, reverse discrimination, and sexual harrassment lawsuits.

We wouldnt even need all those things if White men knew how to fucking behave themselves. All those idiotic laws and training courses were put there because white men are jack-asses. Mind you, I'm limiting my generalizations to people like HERO, and there are a lot of them.

So when are we going to get back to the orignal topic of Moore getting his ass sued? Or are we going to continue down this stupid, pissing contest road of The facist HERO vs the Liberals?

River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:23 AM

RIVER6213

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Now I gotta run for awhile, people need jailin for the weekend and thats my job.

Wow, I guess he's taking his job as security guard at Walmart seriously.

River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

ROTFLMAO

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Dang this is frustrating. I get a transaction error, resubmit and find two posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:31 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Wow, I guess he's taking his job as security guard at Walmart seriously.

River

HA! I put myself through lawschool as a security guard...not for Walmart though. Weekends at a truck depot so I could study.

And I have puppy named River...I take crap from her too, but its easier to clean up.

Edited onto the topic: Oh, Puppy River dislikes Michael Moore and has been know to urinate at the mention of his name...much like a few Republicans I know. She thinks my orginal estimate of an $8.5-12M settlement is most likely.

H
and R

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is the first semblence of wit I've seen from you. You're learning, Zero. And I thought you were uneducable.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:27 PM

HKCAVALIER

So is everyone here in agreement that Moore should be getting sued over this? 'Cause I don't see it. Are people who support Bush to be exempted from appearing in left wing documentaries, now? Does it somehow "help the terrorists" if Michael Moore gets footage of them?

War is a huge public relations headache; always has been, always will be. The more immediate the information you get about it, the less attractive the whole project looks to people (funny how that works).

Gotta keep all information about war on the purely symbolic/heroic/ideological level. After all, if we see too many actual soldiers suffering and what's even worse: soldiers complaining the world is likely to turn Communi--I mean, I'm sorry, Islamist by next Christmas! (Oh my gosh! Does that mean no more Christmas??? Bush didn't even mention that in his last address! Good gravy Miss Mavy, there's not a moment to lose, I sure hope my local recruiting office is still open!)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:56 PM

AMITON

I don't think Bush & Co. should be exceptions to any rule. For me, this has nothing to do with Republicans, terrorists, or even the war.

The *entire* problem I have with this film, and much of Michael Moore's work, is that it's inflammitory misinformation and sometimes outright fabrications being passed off as fact. Michael Moore is publishing what he is calling documentaries, which to me is intended to be a respectable form of journalism with the intent to draw focused attention on the truth.

When journalists report false information about someone and publish it as fact they are very liable to be sued and could well never find a respectable job in the industry again. Not lately, mind you, but ideally.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"it's inflammitory misinformation and sometimes outright fabrications being passed off as fact."

As is "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive", "WMD", "mushroom cloud", "blue skies initiative", "sound science" - and the rest of the Bush crap. Why doesn't THAT irritate you no end? You can choose to see a MM film, or not. Unless you're ready to leave the US, you're stuck with whatever inflammatory lie Bush spews.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:10 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
It's a frivolous lawsuit, one that won't make it far. Interesting that Republicans are usually the ones whining about frivolous lawsuits tying up our legal system. Loss of reputation? What reputation? Is this guy a celeb or a public figure? Everyone who appears on camera in documentaries has to sign a waiver authorizing use of their interview, despite this guy claiming he didn't give Moore permission to use the footage, he almost certainly did, perhaps not personally to Moore, but to one of the people involved in F 9/11. If this guy signed off, that will the end of the case. The waivers never say, we can use this part of your interview, but not this part. The entire interview would have been authorized, so the guy has no case of any merit, assuming that Moore's people did their job and got a signed authorization/release. He's just pissed off and trying to get attention, and/or money. Time will tell of course, but I would be surprised if this guy gets one penny for his troubles. I wonder how many millions he tried to get out of Moore before going public?

From a brief (exceedingly brief - I guess that tells you right there how important I find this whole story) perusal of the reports the footage used by Moore was originally shot by an NBC news crew who were doing a report about military personnel in that particular hospital. Seems to me like Moore just bought the footage (or went through some sort of interaction to get the footage). I don't see how Moore can be held accountable in this instance for misrepresentation. It's not like he went to the hospital, talked to the guy, told him a lie about how he was going to use the footage and then filmed away.

The only potentially legitimate complaint this guy has (IMHO) is with those who originally shot the footage and then traded it to Moore (and NBC one of the parties getting sued so maybe that's what he is going for with that part of the suit). I have no idea what the process is when a news crew films people and if there are signed releases and all that (the only thing I have to go on is how we do things in academe and there are pretty stringent protocols in place for videotaping individuals and getting their permission, after explaining how the footage will be used and who will have access to it and when it needs to be destroyed, etc. - I'm really only familiar with non medical human subjects protocols but I do know it gets even more strict when the studies are of a medical nature). And I also don't know what rights a person has in how that video is used after it is filmed. If it's anything like tabloid photographs then probably no rights.

If this guy wants to challenge the whole process of news organizations selling off video footage to third parties then I think the dollar amount is legitimate since the penalty, if a jury finds in his favor, should be more than a slap on the wrist. The reason settlements in these cases are often so large is that juries want to send a message to corporations that the behavior they engaged in was not cool and there should be more than just one lash with a wet noodle. Although what often happens is that the original amount awarded by the jury is nickel and dimed down to an amount not even of the same order of magnitude (hey, those corporate lawyers get paid the big bucks for a reason). Talk about not believing in the will of the people (as decided on by a jury of everyday folk).

However, it also sounds like he just has a hard-on for Moore. Which is fine. Many people on the right do. It's amazing how much power they think he has and how frightened of him they are. I don't know anyone personally on the left who thinks he walks on water (unless frozen and even then ... okay, I won't go there). But say his name to some people on the right and BAM, all higher order cognition shuts down and they're all reptilian brain. Quite humerous actually.

* edited to add: This post was apparently sponsered by "(" anc ")".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 1:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nah, I don't think MM should be sued. At least not unless I have facts that indicate that he didn't get permission from whomever he was supposed to get permission from. And frankly, I doubt this guy's "loss of" reputation is worth $85 million.

Most people on the right have no problems mischaracterizing their "enemies". Kerry got "swift-boated" with outright lies about his service in Vietnam. Jean Schmidt (R) called John Murtha- who served in Korea and Vietnam- a "coward". Chambliss (R) called triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland "traitor". McCain's wife, according to Republican dirty tricksters, had a half-black love child. Conyers employed some of his staff to (GASP!) babysit.

Should we hold Michael Moore to higher standards?

Nah.....

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:01 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

Amiton, you might be right about Moore not having a release from the man suing him. If Moore didn't get a release he's certainly guilty of stupidity, if nothing else. It's impossible for a documentary filmmaker to get releases from everyone, for example it would be tough to get a release from someone you corner on the street and throw questions at. On the other hand actual interviews should always be accompanied by a written authorization. It would be incredibly foolish for Moore to have included this guy in F 9/11 without s blanket release in writing. I think Moore will win this suit anyway, but he should give some serious thought to being more careful in the future. To be fair, Moore should not have used the man's footage in the first place, though I don't think he should be sued over it.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 7:34 AM

SOUPCATCHER

DallasFirefly,

Moore had nothing to do with the filming of the footage. He bought it second-hand, so to speak. An NBC news crew shot the footage for a story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 8:45 AM

FLETCH2

My understanding (taken from various amateur photography websites) is that even a release would not nescessarily help you in all cases. Releases essentially deal with the contractual part of establishing who has the rights to dispose of an image and what media it can be used in. Even assuming that the producer of the material gets the subject to sign over all rights to the image it doesn't mean it can be used for anything.

For example, I take a picture of a model in a swimsuit and she signs a release. Later it gets used in a very visible billboard campaign. It's unlikely that the model can later turn around and sue me for more money because my use of the image and it's sale to an adverising firm are things covered in the original contract.

However, suppose I sell the image to a porn producer to put on the cover of one of his tapes. The tape implies that the model appears in the video. Now even though the release she signed says that I have all rights to the image she could probably sue for reputation damage because of its use on the video. Likewise if the model's image used on that billboard had an caption that says "This girl has AIDs, be safe get tested" she would probably sue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 5:56 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

Overall I like Moore, but buying second hand footage from NBC, then editing it to portray it's subject as anti war/military when that was clearly not the case is underhanded. I doubt that this suit will go anywhere, but it damages Moore's credibility, and I'm someone who usually defends him.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 6:22 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
Overall I like Moore, but buying second hand footage from NBC, then editing it to portray it's subject as anti war/military when that was clearly not the case is underhanded. I doubt that this suit will go anywhere, but it damages Moore's credibility, and I'm someone who usually defends him.

I wouldn't disagree with any particular point. However, it's been a long time since I saw F911. I don't remember this particular 10 second clip. I don't know if the man said anything on the clip. I don't know how the clip was used, whether to make the point that war is terrible or to make the point that the military doesn't support the war, or whatever. And I don't feel strongly enough about this topic to actually go out and rent F911 (or even to put it in the Netflix queue). So, absent actually seeing the clip in its entirety and in context, I'm not sure if your points are valid. They may very well be. And it wouldn't surprise me. But without hard evidence I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon.

One thing is clear. Those arguing that Moore tricked this man into getting him on video are in error. There was no false advertising since he never actually dealt with this man at all. If he is guilty of anything it is what you said, using video to give an impression that is the opposite from what the man intended. Which I agree is a crappy thing to do. It's not right when politicians do it (the vast majority of spin falls in this category - using selected evidence to give an impression that is the exact opposite of what all the evidence shows) and it's not right when documentary filmmakers do it (and it wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of documentary filmmakers actually did engage in this behavior - every edit is a decision to leave out information when you get right down to brass tacks).

* edited to clarify some things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 10:07 PM

DALLASFIREFLY

The brief clip wasn't a major part of the film, it was used to reinforce Moore's view of the human damage the war has caused, and his claim that the military/White House isn't doing enough to care for soldiers wounded in Iraq. Of course he could have found plenty of soldiers who have had trouble with VA hospitals and red tape since being injured. The fact that this soldier isn't unhappy with his treatment since injury doesn't alter the fact that many are. Moore's point is valid, he just should have used a different clip to reinforce it.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 4, 2006 5:58 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"it's inflammitory misinformation and sometimes outright fabrications being passed off as fact."

As is "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive", "WMD", "mushroom cloud", "blue skies initiative", "sound science" - and the rest of the Bush crap. Why doesn't THAT irritate you no end? You can choose to see a MM film, or not. Unless you're ready to leave the US, you're stuck with whatever inflammatory lie Bush spews.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

I will certainly agree that those are all inflammitory terms, Rue. And I will agree that Bush and crew are guilty, in most common senses of the word, of doing more than a few things that they shouldn't.

I will say this: I have been a slanted supporter of Republican candidates, by and large. That's more because the information that I know about candidates I really don't like tends to be more about Democrats than Republicans, not because I affiliate with one party or another.

Personally, I think every *single* one of our national level politicians are corrupt, and they all need to be removed, have a new series of laws put in place to prevent it from ever happening again installed, and start over with a clean slate. I don't think it matters what your intentions are when you get to Washington. You're going to play the dirty game or your going to end up in very bad shape.

And it's for that same reason that I believe that it doesn't really matter who we put in office via elections. No matter their personal beliefs, they're going to end up doing what they're told just like every other national level politician, or they're going to be ruined. Period.

I'm not a huge Bush guy, but Bush did do one thing that I gave a lot of credit for (whether it was his doing or not). In my eyes, he never really put himself up as much more than a puppet for his advisors - he's the frontman to take the flak and does what he's told - and he installed a powerful, and for the most part intelligent and well-credentialled cabinet to be those advisors.

More and more, it's coming to pass that some of those advisors have either less than honorable or less than intelligent agendas and now we don't have a president that's got enough of anything to stop it. And we as a nation are paying for that.

While the buck does, and rightfully should, stop at Bush, I don't hate *him* for it. The strange bedfellows of Rumsfeld and the heads of our intelligence organizations are where the blame lies for me. They all need to be removed as quickly as possible (and I don't believe for a second that Hayden was a step in the right direction, btw), but then the issue comes in who are we going to replace them with in a way that we know will slow the damage? I don't have that answer.

Bush is a putz. I'm there now. I don't think he did anything that any other politician wouldn't have been put through in the same situation, though. That's why I'm not real big on the impeachment thing (that, and I don't think it would have ever been mentioned if it hadn't happened to Clinton and now some people want to even the score). He'll finish his term and we will begin to rebuild as a nation. If he's personally found guilty of violating laws (which it sounds like he's been painting a pretty picture for with respect to constitutional law) then prosecute him in two years and finish completely discrediting his presidency. There's no need for bad blood there, he's doing just fine on his own.

Blah. I've lost my thoughtline and I'm wandering now. I hope this made some sense, and I hope I fit an answer to your question in there somewhere, Rue. If I didn't, ask it another way and I'll see if I can come up with a more concise answer that *does* make sense. And just in case that came off as a dig at you, it wasn't

It was a statement about my lack of clear writing before I start thinking =p

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What does =p indicate?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 4, 2006 9:42 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What does =p indicate?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

It's an older emote for sticking out one's tongue in a playful sort of way. At least it always has been for me. I don't usually use the provided emoticons from the site. Most of them are cute, but not really my thing, and they're in a different format than I'm used to.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 4, 2006 4:38 PM

ERIC

I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet, but it seems this same guy stood right alongside with Ed Kennedy in 2004 as he slammed Shrubya for going to war for political reasons.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/kennedy.iraq/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE