• 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

jj said:
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'm not so sure I can agree with the latter argument. It can't be an attempt to 'silence' Moore; the movie's already out and has been out for years, so its release can't be stopped judicially.
 
I don't think a release form makes it okay to libel someone.

And since the soldier is a private person...while Moore is a public figure...he MIGHT have a case. As a member of the military it would probably seriously harm his reputation for people to believe he was against the war.

I don't know about this 85 million dollar stuff, but that's just standard legal practice as far as I know. Sue for a ridiculous amount so that a huge but not nearly as ridiculous amount sounds reasonable.

The soldier in question, if he had something about him misrepresented to the country, should have every right to correct that misinformation in an equally public way. Especially if it damages his reputation.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
I'm not so sure I can agree with the latter argument. It can't be an attempt to 'silence' Moore; the movie's already out and has been out for years, so its release can't be stopped judicially.
Click to expand...

It can destroy his ability to make more crap...

And while I think he is a first-rate creep, I also recall the 1950's.
 
Strange - it seems much of the above arguments are based on the assumption that the excerpt used by Moore in his film somehow had the opposite intention to the whole interview's intention. AFAIK, that has yet to be established. So aren't we jumping the gun here?
 
EGarrett said:
I don't think a release form makes it okay to libel someone.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't mention libel so I don't think libel has anything to do with his lawsuit.


EGarrett said:
...snip...

I don't know about this 85 million dollar stuff, but that's just standard legal practice as far as I know. Sue for a ridiculous amount so that a huge but not nearly as ridiculous amount sounds reasonable.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are right but that is a terrible state of affairs.
EGarrett said:
The soldier in question, if he had something about him misrepresented to the country, should have every right to correct that misinformation in an equally public way. Especially if it damages his reputation.
Click to expand...

But if he signed a typical media release form it is very likely he gave up any rights he would have had to control how the material is used. The sketchy outlines of his case makes it hard to determine but I would have thought he would have had more a case for seeking some financial recompense based on the fact that his clip contributed to the success of the film and he hadn't been paid a buy-out fee for the material. Still very hard to win but probably more likely to get something - say $1,000 or so. (Mind you if he was in fact paid by NBC for his interview then that route wouldn't be open to him as I'm sure their standard rider would be for a complete buy-out.)
 
corplinx said:
I'm not Jocko. I'm Corplinx. I use an avatar of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. I think Jocko uses an avatar of a guy dressed as Captain Crunch doing a crossword puzzle or something.
Click to expand...
Hah! You're not fooling anyone. jj knows who you really are; the black helicopter guys told him during their last interrogation.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit is frivolous precisely because of the money.

If this guy felt so bad about it, but only wanted the record set straight, he should have asked for $1, simply to make a point.

But, no: He goes after the money. Lots of it.

How did he calculate that amount?
 
CFLarsen said:
The lawsuit is frivolous precisely because of the money.

If this guy felt so bad about it, but only wanted the record set straight, he should have asked for $1, simply to make a point.

But, no: He goes after the money. Lots of it.

How did he calculate that amount?
Click to expand...

Well a justification can be be made that A) the vet wants to recoup his legal fees and B) he wants the amount to be punative.
 
Darat said:
On B - isn't it up to the court to set the level of any punitive damages not the claimant?
Click to expand...

Not in the case of civil suits, IIRC. However, I am not a scum-bag lawyer taking 50% of the amount asked for. Hmm, whose idea was $85 million anyway?
 
Zep said:
Strange - it seems much of the above arguments are based on the assumption that the excerpt used by Moore in his film somehow had the opposite intention to the whole interview's intention. AFAIK, that has yet to be established. So aren't we jumping the gun here?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I was wondering if anyone was going to address this. It appears everyone here is assuming that what the vet is saying is true, that Moore really did take his quote wildly out of context for the purpose of twisting it into an anti-Iraq war statement.

Has anyone here seen the movie? Disregarding for the moment the lawsuit, is his complaint justified? Does Moore indeed paint him, through selective editing, as an opponent of the war?
 
I've seen it but can't remember but again it doesn't really matter, what matters is if and what rights he signed away or sold at the time of the original interview.

Sadly many people don't realise that a typical "release form" is normally extremely wide ranging, and the producers of the show will generally obtain all rights for all eternity and throughout the universe. So you sign one and ten years later you can find your clip being used to sell hemorrhoid relief cream and all you can do is grin and bear it.

(The more I think about it the more I think we should teach kids a lot more about what a contract is and isn't before they are old enough to sign one!)
 
Darat said:
If it was A his suit should be for one dollar and costs.
Click to expand...
That would be very persuasive.

Fight back with everything you got.

If you lose, you accept the cost.

If you win, you come out even, with a symbolic win.

Are you in it for the win, or are you in it for the money?
 
BPSCG said:
Thank you. I was wondering if anyone was going to address this. It appears everyone here is assuming that what the vet is saying is true, that Moore really did take his quote wildly out of context for the purpose of twisting it into an anti-Iraq war statement.
Click to expand...

Well, not everyone.

Has anyone here seen the movie? Disregarding for the moment the lawsuit, is his complaint justified? Does Moore indeed paint him, through selective editing, as an opponent of the war?
Click to expand...

I saw the movie, but don't recall. Frankly, I found the movie boring and stopped watching about halfway through.
 
there is no doubt that this guy signed a release and is **** out of luck. the 85 million bucks is freakin ridiculous. reviewing what was said, it doesn't seem nearly as out of context as his suit would suggest. he just doesn't want to be included in an anti war film, but once that release was signed it was no longer up to him. there is no case now. there is absolutely nothing wrong with the inculsion of his clip in the film.
 
I saw the movie. Incidentally, this same vet also appeared in Farenhype 9-11, the right-wing quasi-rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9-11. Both movies were lousy, IMHO. As for the lawsuit, it seems that nobody can sue for any kind of damage these days without starting with an insanely high number. I am sure the lawyer had something to do with that. I doubt the lawyer or the person suing really think they are going to get 85 million dollars. It's probably just a publicity ploy. I get the impression, especially given what the vet says in Fahrenhype 9-11 (he is upset at how Moore portrays him and the care he received at Walter Reed), that he may just be trying to get some attention in the hopes that Moore will remove him from the film. Just speculation on my part, but I have a hard time believing he really thinks he will get 85 million.

As far as how he is portrayed in the movie.... Moore is pretty sleazy in general, in my opinion, but he is clever about it. He does not portray this vet as anti-war, per se. But watched with the context of that part of the movie, the portrayal is more one of a crippled veteran who is disgruntled with the care he is receiving after being injured.

Frankly, I would be royally p!ssed if Michael Moore used any footage of me in one of his movies. Whether or not that would be enough for a lawsuit or not, I don't know. It strikes me as being pretty sleazy to use someone's footage in a political film without asking them. Incidentally, Moore also used footage from the funeral of a deceased Soldier without asking the family, who ended up not being happy about it. That is triple-sleazy in my book.
 
Cleon said:
(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.)
Click to expand...

The CLINTON years taught us that? The courts have been used for political reasons by special interest groups almost as long as the Republic existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom