Michael Moore/Charlton Heston libel question. Doper lawyers?

[Rusalka]

Fenris, The way you frame your question indicates you have a bone to pick. If you really wanted to know the legal merits of the type of situation you describe and not discuss the realities of this particular case, you should have chosen a more neutral example.

I take no sides, and have read the cite you posted. Yes, Michael Moore did present a view framed in a slanted way, but as I said before, it was a very obvious. (I thought his presentation of the connection of Heston with the Michigan shooting incident to be particularly unconvincing) Any rational person could see how the movie was spliced together.

It was clear that much of the arrangement of Moore’s clips were done for dramatic effect, to bring his message across. Is this propaganda? Of course. Propaganda isn’t the same as slander. Politicians use this method all the time. I am not defending this, but it’s not illegal.

[BF]

Well, since this thread is headed for the dustbin, I’d like to make one comment. Rusalka, you stated:

(I thought his presentation of the connection of Heston with the Michigan shooting incident to be particularly unconvincing) Any rational person could see how the movie was spliced together.

Unfortunately, in a few threads in the past week regarding BtC and gun-control, Moore’s movie has been cited numerous times as a source for information about the NRA. A number of posters (especially those across the pond), have pointed out the callousness of Heston and the NRA by “staging rallies” immediately after Columbine and another school shooting, precisely because Moore’s portrays this in BtC. Of course this has been disproven by a number of sources, but it appears to have made a lasting impression on a number of the world’s populace.

[DoctorJ]

I think you’d have to show that the edits deliberately and seriously altered the substance of Heston’s point. I really don’t see how that would be the case in this example–after reading Heston’s speech, his point seems to be exactly the point I got from the clip of the speech in the movie.

I also don’t see why it’s a big deal that the “cold, dead hands” comment came from another rally–it was shown before the other footage and before the billboard was shown, so I took it as a particularly colorful shot of Heston, not a shot of Heston at that rally.

To answer the question, I think a reasonable person can conclude that the substance of Mr. Heston’s comments was not altered sufficiently to hold up a slander claim.

Dr. J

[pravnik]

Originally posted by Fenris *
**
A) Could Heston sue Moore for libel/slander? (Well, of course he could, but would he be laughed out of the courtroom?)
B) What would be Heston’s chances of winning?
C) I understand that it’s pretty hard to win against a journalist on a libel charge. What sort of things tend to lead to a successful lawsuit?*

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read this was “false light”, a branch of the tort of invasion of privacy. False light exists when you attribute to a plaintiff views he does not hold, or actions he did not take, that would be objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances. There is a First Amendment limitation on false light; if the matter is in the public interest, malice on the defendant’s part must be proved.

The statement could be libel as well. Since slander and libel evolved long before modern media, it’s sometimes it’s difficult to tell if a statement is slander or libel; courts will look at the permanency, area of dissemination, and deliberate character of the publication. Oral statements on radio or television are treated as libel if they meet these characteristics sufficiently. The modern trend treats radio and television as libel even if the defamation is “ad libbed.”

Since Heston is a public figure, malice must be proven for libel as well, which means either knowledge or reckless disregard as to the statements truth or falsity. Deliberately altering a quotation may constitute malice if the alteration causes a material change in the meaning conveyed.

[Otto]

Revoke the Oscar
The Academy’s documentary rules

Provided for informational purposes only and not meant as an endorsement or repudiation of any particular position.

[Nametag]

Pravnik is, of course, correct; false light and libel appear to be the appropriate civil charges. I believe that “libel” is the appropriate label because film is a far more permanent and deliberate medium than television (for one thing, it’s edited). However, I’ll have to say that I don’t see either one here. The sentences uttered were real, and the way they were strung together did not change their meaning; it only heightened their impact. As a polemicist, Moore is expected to do that; as a filmmaker, he’s required to do it. Do you think regurgitating the entire speech would have won him an Oscar? No; most of it, like most speeches, was repetitive, idsingenuous, and self-serving.

The only thing Moore’s edit disguises is that “We’re already here” actually refers to NRA members living in Denver, not to the attendees at the gathering. Heston’s confusing the issue here, in my opinion, as Mayor Webb’s “don’t come here” was obviously directed at NRA leadership, not to people living there.

That said, there’s some irony here: The final lines of Heston’s speech include this: “Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us.” Check.

[pravnik]

*Originally posted by Nametag *
Pravnik is, of course, correct;

Aw, shucks. You make-a my head too big!

[Space_Vampire]

Fenris, thanks so much for that first cite, good reading and pretty devastating overall. To think I actually used to be a fan of Moore in days of Roger and Me and TV Nation…

[Dr_Paprika]

I don’t think Moore’s edit changed the message. I don’t think libel is an option. If it was, I’m not convinced the NRA would be wise to pursue this. The rest of this post is opinion, so skip it if you get easily upset by this sort of thing in GQ.

I also think point of view documentaries have their place. It’s hard to do a documentary with no bias, and I don’t see that a filmmaker is obliged to include all viewpoints.

I enjoyed the movie and think it deserves the Oscar. I guess it doesn’t that I somewhat agree with its message. I also like Michael Moore’s books. I do have a problem withthose who believe everything Michael Moore says, because he often does grossly misrepresent facts. As do many business groups, lobbies, Hollywood types, civil servants and professional journalists. No one these days seems to place much credibility on avoiding even the perception of wrong-doing or considers it a lie not to tell the full truth. I regretfully say that I don’t think Moore’s flawed standards are worse than those of modern society.

I also think that pravnik is an enormous boon to the Straight Dope. I enjoy his learned posts. In fact, most of the posters I like the best never appear in those stupid “popularity” lists, which is what happens when the talent pool is so large. Now let us never speak of this again.

[pravnik]

*Originally posted by Dr_Paprika *
**I also think that pravnik is an enormous boon to the Straight Dope. I enjoy his learned posts. In fact, most of the posters I like the best never appear in those stupid “popularity” lists, which is what happens when the talent pool is so large. Now let us never speak of this again. **

Heh…you noticed I never make those things either, eh?

Seriously, wow. Thanks, man. You’ve totally made my day. No, week.

[Barbarian]

First off, slander and libel are NOT spoken and written. Libel applies to all published media-- including radio and TV, and probably the Web.

For example, if I hypothetically made a speech to 300 people saying Fenris was a nogoodnik Charlton Heston supporter who buggered dachshunds, he might have a case for slander. If I published that same speech, either during a TV news program, on a radio show, or in a book or on the web, it’d have to be a libel suit. The medium matters.

However, an essential part of any libel and slander suit is defamation of character. I may call Fenris a dachshund-sodomizer, but if people’s opinion of the man improves after this characterization (because really, dachshunds are sexy), then he hasn’t got a case.

There are some other absolute defences against libel: if Fenris really does enjoy playing hide the sausage with the weiner dogs, then once again he can’t sue me for libel either. I’ve got the defence of TRUTH. On the other hand, if I made the whole thing up, well then blind Lady Justice is gonna weigh my balls on the balance in her left hand and skewer them with that sword she carries in her right.

But if I did make it up, and if Fenris is a celebrity, then he’s got an even tougher case. Because he’s so well-known, the impetus would be on the majestic Fenris to prove that my speech, or my publication, actually had an effect to lessen his reputation in the eyes of those-who-adore-the-studly-godhood-that-is-Fenris. If, on the other hand, Fenris is just a lowly, run-of-the-mill doper, he’s got an easier case. Being less well-known, chances are that the only thing people would have heard about Fenris is that he practices bestiality, at least during this hypothetical exercise.

That’s how most libel and slander cases go.
However, in this case, we’re talking about editing an individual’s speech to say something that he didn’t mean. If Mr. Moore had documented my speech, and then altered it to indicate that I was a weiner-dog-felching Charlton Heston worshipper, then I have a case for libel according to the same guidelines.

So, in my IANAL but I am a journalist opinion… Heston could sue-- but since a lot of people thought Heston was a wingnut beforehand, he hasn’t really got a hope in hell of winning.

And for the record-- I know nothing about Fenris’s carnal activities with small dogs. And I don’t want to know either

[Tomcat]

Arghh! I can’t find the article anymore! Don’t you HATE it when that happens?

Anywho…I read an article similar to this (this being a link to a site that deconstructs the movies falsities) which said that Moore couldn’t be held accountable for libel or slander because he ends the movie with some statement that the whole movie could be false or ??? Basically, Moore covered his ass at some point.

Does anyone know what I’m talking about? I haven’t seen the movie yet (not on video here and was only in the theaters for a week).

-Tcat

[HoviBaby]

That has to be the absolute BEST post I have ever read, Barbarian, on on this or any other site. Congrats.

P.S. Carnality with small dogs as an analogy strengthens any arguement. ANY arguement.

[Otto]

*Originally posted by Barbarian *
**First off, slander and libel are NOT spoken and written. Libel applies to all published media-- including radio and TV, and probably the Web.

For example, if I hypothetically made a speech to 300 people saying Fenris was a nogoodnik Charlton Heston supporter who buggered dachshunds, he might have a case for slander. If I published that same speech, either during a TV news program, on a radio show, or in a book or on the web, it’d have to be a libel suit. **

Remembering always that truth is an absolute defense…

[Ravenman]

I realize that this is an aside, but I’ve looked a fair number of links presented here that “expose the untruths” of Bowling, but geez… those “cites” are easily as biased as the movie, just in a different direction.

But I am really disappointed that none of those linked sites took on that two minute segment about the dangers of the Africanized killer bee, and how that special report, as shown in the movie, was taken completely out of context, and how Moore should give up his award because he defamed local television news stations. That’s one explanation I’d like to read.