# No pain and suffering is worth $175 million. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 2, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123 "2006-06-02T08:30:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Talon\_Karrde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Talon\_Karrde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Talon_Karrde)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/21 "2006-06-02T15:36:50Z")
> [@](#): > > …said attorney David Lynch, who represents Damon. Well that explains everything. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/22 "2006-06-02T15:43:30Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I wouldn’t want that to happen to me. Have my face up on the big screen saying things diametrically opposed to my actual viewpoint. I imagine it would be humiliating, and I would want to sue someone. [/QUOTE] It’s not clear to me that this has happened at all, though. The guy is claiming that he was represented as having anti-war views or not being behind his mission in Iraq. In the lead-in to his segment, Moore’s narration says that some vets aren’t getting the coverage they deserve. Then Mr. Damon: > [@](#): > > I still feel like I have hands. And the pain is like my hands are being crushed in a vise. But they do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it. > > It makes it a lot more tolerable. I was injured in late April on patrol in Baghdad. > > A couple of guys come out and ambushed us. I got nerve damage and stuff like that. I’ve got a lot of pain. I’m constantly in pain. I take a lot of morphine to help with that and stuff. I’m doing… doing… You know, just readjusting. Getting life back on track, you know what I’m saying? > > I’m not gonna do what it is that I did before. > > I was a Republican for quite a few years, and for some reason, they… they conduct business in a very dishonest way. I’m gonna be incredibly active in the Democratic Party down where I live once I get out. I’m gonna definitely do my best… …to ensure that the Democrats win control. Now, according to the [Post](http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69383.htm): > [@](#): > > 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. Everything he was quoted on was prefaced with the comment that some soldiers weren’t “getting the coverage they need.” It seems to me that that’s what Damon was talking about, that’s _all_ he was talking about, and there was no deceptive editing or intention to make it appear that he was against the decision to go to war _itself_. I don’t see that the man was misrepresented at all. Totally frivolous suit – unless Mr. Damon _wasn’t_ dissatisfied with his medical coverage and _didn’t_ intend to support the Democrats when he got back home – in which case that’s some award-winning selective editing, right there. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/23 "2006-06-02T15:43:51Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Moore doesn’t do documentaries. [/QUOTE] No, he just accepts nominations and awards for making documentaries. Ergo, he makes documentaries. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/24 "2006-06-02T15:51:07Z")
[QUOTE=PunditLisa] I agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to take material from one source and put it in a propaganda piece, er, _documentary_, without securing an additional round of releases. That seems fair. Whether that transgression is worth $175 million is another story. [/QUOTE] What “seems fair” to you is completely unrelated to what the actual law is. This wasn’t some advertising or stock photoshoot, where model releases are required for publication. The guy was interviewed as part of an NBC news report. There can be no “additional round of releases” because there was no first round of releases. Once he chose to talk to a camera crew that he knew belonged to a news organization, he knew that his words would appear on the news, and that NBC would own the coverage. [QUOTE=Jess] This would make me furious as well. Can you only sue for money? Could he have sued to force Moore to place a disclaimer on DVDs of the film, stating that he was quoted out of context? [/QUOTE] Well, as far as i can tell he hasn’t yet even demonstrated that he was, in fact, quoted out of context in such a way as to distort his words or their meaning. According to the article linked by the OP: > [@](#): > > In the movie, Damon is shown on a hospital stretcher saying he feels like he is “being crushed in a vice.” > > The clip of Damon taken from the NBC interview is shown just after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, speaks out against the Bush administration. > > “You know, they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind,” McDermott says in the movie. > > In the suit, Damon says the placement of the footage makes it appear as if he is anti-war. I saw the movie in the theater, so it’s been a while, and i don’t remember this particular scene, but if it happened as described in that news article, i think he’s going to have quite a bit of trouble demonstrating that he suffered any real harm from Moore’s documentary. The fact that he appeared in close proximity to an anti-war Democratic congressman really doesn’t say very much. Also, i don’t know about you, but if i saw footage of a soldier who had lost both arms, and who said that he felt like he was being “crushed in a vice,” i wouldn’t jump to any particular conclusions about whether he was for the war, or against it. I would simply think, “Fuck, how shitty would it be to lose both arms? no wonder the guy feels so awful.” [QUOTE=kanicbird] Can’t this guy get anything based on the son of Sam law, or would that require a conviction of MM of aiding our emeny first? [/quote] You are such a fucking mouth-breathing idiot. [QUOTE=kanicbird] To me, if you claim it’s a documentry and I catch you in a lie that has to be intentional on your part in that documentry the whole documentry can not be trusted. This case is just another example of MM’s intent to mislead and further discredits the whole movie. At this point nothing MM says on the subject can be trusted. If MM didn’t claim it to be a documentry I could forgive mistruths in it. [/QUOTE] Just out of interest, what lie have you caught him in? And this whole “it’s not a documentary” schtick has gotten a little old, don’t you think? Find me a single interpretive documentary that can be said to be completely factual and accurate, with no room whatsoever for disagreement over facts or interpretation. Documentaries—not just individual ones like Moore’s, but the whole genre—are no less subject to error, bias, dishonesty, or interpretive differences than any other form of media. My local video store, in its documentary section, has a quote from film-maker Jean Renoir calling documentaries “the most false form of film-making.” And now, on preview, i see that **Larry Mudd** has given more detail about exactly how the scene played out in the movie. If that’s how it was, then i’m even more convinced that this whole thing is a non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/25 "2006-06-02T15:52:53Z")
[QUOTE=UncleBeer] No, he just accepts nominations and awards for making documentaries. Ergo, he makes documentaries. [/QUOTE] Well, I suppose in the loosest sense of the word he might. But let me tell you…the Academy Award people are by no means the final overlords on what the definition of “documentary” is. Tell me…do YOU think he gives equal time to both sides of his issues? I certainly don’t. But I trust what he says regarding his opinions to be the truth nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/26 "2006-06-02T15:54:53Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] But let me tell you…the Academy Award people are by no means the final overlords on what the definition of “documentary” is. Tell me…do YOU think he gives equal time to both sides of his issues? [/QUOTE] In what universe does this quality have a cussed thing to do with documentary filmmaking? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/27 "2006-06-02T15:56:44Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Cherry-picking quotes is a time-honored and perfectly legal propganda tactic (and Moore himself says his movies are cinematic “editorials,” not documentaries, by the way). [/QUOTE] Then why, on Moore’s own website, are his films called documentaries? Including this telling quote: > [@](#): > > Michael Moore, the acclaimed filmmaker and #1 best-selling author whose latest movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 , is the **highest-grossing documentary** of all time, will publish a collection of letters written to Mr. Moore by American G.I.s in Iraq and Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/28 "2006-06-02T15:57:31Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd] In what universe does this quality have a cussed thing to do with documentary filmmaking? [/QUOTE] I was referring to Unclebeer’s statement that because Moore accepted nominations and awards for documentary filmmaking, that they were automatically considered to be documentaries. That fact doesn’t mean it’s a documentary. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/29 "2006-06-02T15:58:33Z")
He’s documenting only part of the story. Unbalanced. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/30 "2006-06-02T16:03:32Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] He’s documenting only part of the story. Unbalanced. Get it? [/QUOTE] Oh, I understand perfectly. But the slant (or lack of slant) of the film matters not a whit to what . I’m only contesting the claims of fact - it has bee stated explicitly by several in here _that Michael Moore does not make documentaries._ And even further it has been stated as fact that Moore doesn’t call his films _documentaries_. These claims of fact are both demonstrably and irrefutably false. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/31 "2006-06-02T16:09:22Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Can’t this guy get anything based on the son of Sam law, or would that require a conviction of MM of aiding our emeny first? To me, if you claim it’s a documentry and I catch you in a lie that has to be intentional on your part in that documentry the whole documentry can not be trusted. This case is just another example of MM’s intent to mislead and further discredits the whole movie. At this point nothing MM says on the subject can be trusted. If MM didn’t claim it to be a documentry I could forgive mistruths in it. [/QUOTE] It’s like the inmate calling the cuckoo loco. So, if one of a list of reasons for a war is proven false…can we follow your “thinking” to its logical conclusion? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/32 "2006-06-02T16:09:48Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] Taking somebody’s quote out of context to change the meaning is fine for the Daily Show, not for a Documentary. [/QUOTE] And you can point to the law that distinguishes between what is allowed in a parody, and what is allowed in a documentary? Or even a law that defines what is a parody, and what is a documentary? > [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, I suppose in the loosest sense of the word he might. But let me tell you…the Academy Award people are by no means the final overlords on what the definition of “documentary” is. Actually, they pretty much are. They’re the world’s premiere organization of film professionals. They’ve got about as much authority to say what is and is not a documentary as the APA has to say what is and is not a mental illness. > [@](#): > > Tell me…do YOU think he gives equal time to both sides of his issues? I certainly don’t. But I trust what he says regarding his opinions to be the truth nonetheless. I don’t trust him, either, but that has nothing to do with wether or not his films are documentaries. “Documentary” does not mean fair, or honest, or undistorted. It just means “purporting to be truthful.” Hell, the first documentary ever made, _Nanook of the North_, was about as staged and choreographed as a Busby Berkely musical. There’s a widespread misconception that a documentary is supposed to be objective, but even a casual familiarity with the genre will show that that has never been the case. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/33 "2006-06-02T16:11:54Z")
[QUOTE=UncleBeer] Oh, I understand perfectly. But the slant (or lack of slant) of the film matters not a whit to what . I’m only contesting the claims of fact - it has bee stated explicitly by several in here _that Michael Moore does not make documentaries._ And even further it has been stated as fact that Moore doesn’t call his films _documentaries_. These claims of fact are both demonstrably and irrefutably false. [/QUOTE] I actually agree with you here. And, personally, i think it’s silly for Moore’s defenders to assert that he doesn’t make documentaries. He does. And the fact that i believe that has nothing to do with my opinion of his work. I wrote a long review of _Fahrenheit 9/11_ (or, actually, a response to Chirstopher Hitchens’ review) on this message board, and made clear that i had some real problems with the movie. But, just like Moore’s defenders are wrong when they claim he doesn’t make documentaries, his critics are wrong when they claim that the errors or misinterpretations or biases in his films mean that they’re not documentaries. I don’t know if you remember, but some conservative made a film aimed at countering Moore’s propaganda. I haven’t seen that film, but even if it’s full of bad interpretation or manipulation of the facts, i still think it’s a documentary. What we need to do is get past the stupid idea that a film only qualifies as a documentary if it adheres to some absolute, objective level of factual and interpretive truth. And, on preview, **Miller** pretty much beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/34 "2006-06-02T16:13:09Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] He’s documenting only part of the story. Unbalanced. Get it? [/QUOTE] Sure it is – but a documentary filmmaker _typically_ has a point of view that is being represented. Hell, the term [“point of view”](http://www.pbs.org/pov/) is unambiguously associated with documentary filmmaking. A neutral POV has never been a requirement for a documentary, and it’s ridiculous to think that there’s some tradition of removing all perspective and personality from a film in order to make it documentary. _Triumph of the Will_ is a documentary film – as well as being unapologetic propaganda. _The Hour of the Furnaces_ has a definite political point of view, but it still considered one of the world’s greatest achievments in documentary filmmaking. Documentary filmmaking is, in most cases, _all about_ presenting a point of view. To pretend that there is some tradition of neutrality or even-handedness in documentary filmmaking is to betray a profound ignorance of its history. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/35 "2006-06-02T16:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Actually, they pretty much are. They’re the world’s premiere organization of film professionals. [/QUOTE] And here are their rules for documentaries: [http://www.oscars.org/79academyawards/rules/rule12.html](http://www.oscars.org/79academyawards/rules/rule12.html) > [@](#): > > An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction. That’s it. Nothing about bias. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/36 "2006-06-02T16:19:16Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Cite? [/QUOTE] From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > [@](#): > > n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries > A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition > Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Taking an out of context quote and presenting it in a manner opposite to the original context is neither factual nor informative with respect to the subject. It’s not even about being objective or neutral, it’s about taking a statement, distorting it’s meaning, and presenting that distorted meaning as factual. If the REAL facts don’t support your point of view, tough shit, I guess your POV isn’t that solid then, is it? I’m certainly willing to admit that this guy could be bullshitting about being taken out of context in the first place. Take any lawsuit filed anywhere and it’s possible the plaintiff is flat out full of shit. Discussions about the merits of the lawsuit either assume the facts are as presented (which is what I’ve done), or have to discuss those facts directly (which I can’t, since I don’t have the movie to look at). ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/37 "2006-06-02T16:23:39Z")
My understanding of US law is that, since the First Amendment comes into play here, the plaintiff has zero chance of winning, and his lawyers know it. So lodging this suit is just a cheap publicity trick, and putting the high damages in it was just a way of getting more media coverage. There should be a price tag on bullshit cases like this, such as the plaintiff having to pay the defendant’s legal costs. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/38 "2006-06-02T16:24:19Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I’m certainly willing to admit that this guy could be bullshitting about being taken out of context in the first place. Take any lawsuit filed anywhere and it’s possible the plaintiff is flat out full of shit. Discussions about the merits of the lawsuit either assume the facts are as presented (which is what I’ve done), or have to discuss those facts directly (which I can’t, since I don’t have the movie to look at). [/QUOTE] OK, let’s leave aside the fact that you’re apparently so intent on getting it right that you won’t make an evaluation until you see the footage in the movie for yourself. Why would you assume the facts are as presented by the plaintiff? What if the situation occurred as described in **Larry Mudd** ’s post #22, above? Would you argue, based on that information, that the guy was misrepresented in Moore’s film? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/39 "2006-06-02T16:36:08Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) Taking an out of context quote and presenting it in a manner opposite to the original context is neither factual nor informative with respect to the subject. It’s not even about being objective or neutral, it’s about taking a statement, distorting it’s meaning, and presenting that distorted meaning as factual. If the REAL facts don’t support your point of view, tough shit, I guess your POV isn’t that solid then, is it? I’m certainly willing to admit that this guy could be bullshitting about being taken out of context in the first place. Take any lawsuit filed anywhere and it’s possible the plaintiff is flat out full of shit. Discussions about the merits of the lawsuit either assume the facts are as presented (which is what I’ve done), or have to discuss those facts directly (which I can’t, since I don’t have the movie to look at). [/QUOTE] I didn’t ask for a definition of “documentary,” I wanted a cite for your claim that there is any legal difference between how clips can be used in parodies and how they can be used in documentaries. There is nothing in that guy’s quote which was distorted or misrepresented. He said what he said. There WAS no “context” which could alter the plain meaning of what he said and Moore made no claim that the guy was against the war. The soldier agreed to be interviewed and HE said he was going to work for the Democrats, Now he has to live with that. Too bad for him. What “context” would alter the meaning of his own words? What law says that Moore would have to show that context? What was the “real meaning” which you’re suggesting has been changed? The allegations _as presented_ (i.e. even if everything the soldier says as true) still do not amount to an actionable claim and his complaint will be dismissed for lack of merit. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123/40 "2006-06-02T16:59:52Z")
[QUOTE=Giles] My understanding of US law is that, since the First Amendment comes into play here, the plaintiff has zero chance of winning, and his lawyers know it. [/QUOTE] Defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. But (not having read the suit) I’m hard-pressed to see how “the placement of the footage makes me seem anti-war” meets the legal definition of “defamation.” And even if it does, I can’t imagine that this guy could show that he was monetarily damaged by it. As for the infliction of emotional distress claim, SCOTUS has ruled that the inflictor’s First Amendment right triumphs over a public figure’s claim of such in the realm of parody (Hustler Magazine v Falwell). I’m not sure if the Court has also found so in non-parodic situations, if the party claiming the infliction isn’t a public figure or whether agreeing to appear in a national news broadcast makes one a public figure for purposes of the law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-pain-and-suffering-is-worth-175-million/359123.md?page=3)