• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iraq Vet Sues Michael Moore For Misleading Interview

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
Just when you thought you'd heard the last of Farenheit 911:
A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "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.
Click to expand...

Particularly outrageous to Damon is the fact that Moore never interviewed him or asked his permission to use the old clip.

"I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller]," he said.

NBC is named in the suit - which was filed in Suffolk County, Mass., on Friday - along with Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax Corp., Lions Gate Films and other production companies involved with the picture.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit.

That part, which wasn't shown in the Moore movie, is a far more accurate depiction of Damon's feelings, he said.

Lawyer Dennis Lynch said he took the case last year and they held off filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.
Click to expand...
 
It will depend on the release agreement he signed with NBC - if he gave them the rights to the material it can appear pretty much anywhere.

One of the things that caught my attention was "$85 million" WHAT?!

ETA

...snip...

Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."

..snip...
Click to expand...

Absolutely ridiculous - I hope the first court that looks at this just throws it out as being frivolous and vindictive lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Absolutely ridiculous - I hope the first court that looks at this just throws it out as being frivolous and vindictive lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The money is absurd, but the lawsuit is not frivolous. Michael Moore is a misinforming POS that is just as bad as any of the people he attacks. His opinion is that lies and distorting the truth is OK as long as it is used for good -- we have seen where that leads in history.

I would like to see some sort of legislation on this issue because it is seriously getting out of control these days. You can't go a day without seeing some BS spin put on video clips that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
 
rocketdodger said:
The money is absurd, but the lawsuit is not frivolous. Michael Moore is a misinforming POS that is just as bad as any of the people he attacks. His opinion is that lies and distorting the truth is OK as long as it is used for good -- we have seen where that leads in history.

I would like to see some sort of legislation on this issue because it is seriously getting out of control these days. You can't go a day without seeing some BS spin put on video clips that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt NBC didn't get a release form, if they did then he hasn't got a leg to stand on since he has already given up his rights to control how it is used. That is why it is frivolous and why it hasn't got a chance in hell in getting anywhere; as for vindictive - look at the comments he makes in the article.
 
rocketdodger said:
The money is absurd, but the lawsuit is not frivolous.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the lawsuit's basis is legitimate and not a shameless grab for money and/or smear of Moore. (If there's one thing the Clinton years taught us, it's that there are a number of groups and individuals who are happy to abuse the court system for political reasons.)

I would like to see some sort of legislation on this issue because it is seriously getting out of control these days. You can't go a day without seeing some BS spin put on video clips that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Click to expand...
Oh, please, do tell. How exactly would you regulate that sort of thing without being a massive infringement of freedom of the press, speech, etc? You said that "history shows" what "lies and distorting the truth" lead to--what does history tell us about governments regulating what journalists may or may not say?
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Oh, please, do tell. How exactly would you regulate that sort of thing without being a massive infringement of freedom of the press, speech, etc? You said that "history shows" what "lies and distorting the truth" lead to--what does history tell us about governments regulating what journalists may or may not say?
Click to expand...

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about an individuals right to prevent others from distorting the meaning of their comments.

Remember that fuss about the politician talking about aborting black babies to prevent crime? When viewed in the context of that interview, specifically the surrounding questions and comments, that statement was not offensive at all. Yet, cut it out of the discussion and treat it as standalone, and it infuriates people.

That kind of misinformation is reprehensible and can easily be prevented by legislation without harming free speech at all. At the very least, force media to provide interviews in their entirety rather than intermittent clips, as well as information regarding when the interview took place and what the topic was as told to the interviewee.
 
rocketdodger said:
That kind of misinformation is reprehensible and can easily be prevented by legislation without harming free speech at all. At the very least, force media to provide interviews in their entirety rather than intermittent clips, as well as information regarding when the interview took place and what the topic was as told to the interviewee.
Click to expand...

Ok sorry I was so stupid, I see that this is a bad idea.

But, perhaps legislation should be put in place to make it easier for those misrepresented by the media to fight back?
 
rocketdodger said:
But, perhaps legislation should be put in place to make it easier for those misrepresented by the media to fight back?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should think on this one for a little while too. Unless you want a huge cluster**** of litigation from public officials every time the media paints them in a bad light.
 
Cleon said:
Perhaps you should think on this one for a little while too. Unless you want a huge cluster**** of litigation from public officials every time the media paints them in a bad light.
Click to expand...

Look all I know is that Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore and people like them are pieces of sh-- that need to be put in their place. I dunno how best to do that, but it should be done.
 
rocketdodger said:
Look all I know is that Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore and people like them are pieces of sh-- that need to be put in their place. I dunno how best to do that, but it should be done.
Click to expand...

It's easy to say "there oughter be a law!" but a bit more difficult to actually implement some sort of solution, no? Problem is...People have the right to be dishonest. That's the downside of that whole "free speech/free press" thing.

But again...At this point there's no evidence the lawsuit is legit.
 
Cleon said:
It's easy to say "there oughter be a law!" but a bit more difficult to actually implement some sort of solution, no? Problem is...People have the right to be dishonest. That's the downside of that whole "free speech/free press" thing.
Click to expand...

People do not have a right to be dishonest. That is why western law is so full of legislation regarding copyrights and slander.
 
rocketdodger said:
People do not have a right to be dishonest. That is why western law is so full of legislation regarding copyrights and slander.
Click to expand...

If you'll notice, issues of libel and slander are notoriously difficult to pursue due to free speech and free press.

If people didn't have the right to be dishonest, would we still be plagued with 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism, "psychics," Pat Robertson, homeopathy, etc? All of those rely on dishonesty from some and gullibility from others.
 
Cleon said:
If you'll notice, issues of libel and slander are notoriously difficult to pursue due to free speech and free press.
Click to expand...

I know, thats why I advocate personal violence rather than lawsuits when someone burns you.
 
Cleon said:
Perhaps you should think on this one for a little while too. Unless you want a huge cluster**** of litigation from public officials every time the media paints them in a bad light.
Click to expand...

That is what Bush apologists want. Just think about it a minute, they can't stand criticism...

As to Moore, well, 85 million is a joke. This is deliberate political grandstanding on both sides, I dare say, and an attempt to silence Moore (who is a twirp indeed) via litigation.
 
rocketdodger said:
Remember that fuss about the politician talking about aborting black babies to prevent crime? When viewed in the context of that interview, specifically the surrounding questions and comments, that statement was not offensive at all. Yet, cut it out of the discussion and treat it as standalone, and it infuriates people.
Click to expand...
You are wrong about this, his statements, taken IN context were very offensive. Some suggested that he simply said “abort black babies”. Any many of his apologists tried to suggest that that was the issue he was being criticized for. He did not. What he did was to single out the color of a child’s skin as the factor that would predispose one to criminal activity. That is offensive, he is an @ss. Go back and reread it.

Daredelvis
 
jj said:
That is what Bush apologists want. Just think about it a minute, they can't stand criticism...
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, I'm aware.

As to Moore, well, 85 million is a joke. This is deliberate political grandstanding on both sides, I dare say, and an attempt to silence Moore (who is a twirp indeed) via litigation.
Click to expand...

I kinda wonder if Judicial Watch is funding the suit....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom