For purposes of discussing the topic, other assumptions are pretty dull. If you assume he’s lying, then the suit is a dead non-starter with zero merit. If you assume nothing about the plaintiff’s claim, how can you make an argument about it?
Assuming the plaintiff has a legitimate beef (legally supported or not) at least lets you discuss whether or not such an act is, or should be something you can sue over.
It’s not.
But even the article linked by the OP allows you to make some evaluation of whether the plaintiff’s claim is reasonable or not. You don’t have to assume he’s intentionally lying, but neither do you have to assume that his version of events is the only possible one, or even the most valid one. Especially when people are actually providing transcripts of what he said.
Let me take the transcript of his comments, provided by Larry Mudd, and ask a question based on Diogenes’s most recent post:
How might changing the context have materially altered the meaning of the soldier’s statements? As far as i can see, those statements are pretty clear and unambiguous, no matter the context.
Actually I shouldn’t say you can’t sue. You can legally TRY to sue anyone for anything, but this complaint will never survive the most peremptory challenge.
Cite?
That is, cite my “claim” that there is a legal difference between parodies and documentaries.
Not having a legally actionable claim does not mean that his complaint is without merit. You do not have a legally actionable claim that Bush started an “illegal” war, yet that claim has merit, doesn’t it?
Well, I stand corrected. I will concede that it’s a documentary, though unbalanced. I believe him to be documenting truthfully. I’d like to see what the soldier’s entire statement was, since he’s claiming it was quoted out of context. So far, I’m still in Moore’s corner.
Well, it sounds like you’re trying to make a legal distinction between parody and documentary with this quote:
If you weren’t claiming a legal distinction between the two, I’m not sure what you were trying to say.
Well that was definitely the impression I got. When you said
What do you mean by “fine” and “not fine” if you’re not talking about legalities?
“Dismissed for lack of Merit” is a legal phrase. It means that even if the allegations are true there is still no actionable claim against the defendant.
In this case the complaint lacks merit both in the legal sense and the informal sense.
Miller, why is it that the only distinctions worth talking about are the ones written in the law? There’s more to the world than what’s written into the law.
It’s sad when right and wrong is decided by a consult with the legal team, and it’s deemed A-OK when you can’t be successfully sued over it.
Can’t I just fucking say something isn’t RIGHT without having to prove it’s illegal?
Now that I’ve reread the article and the transcript, I think I really ought to point something out:
I think the transcript may record snippets from several soldiers without indicating that different people are speaking. (There is no differentiation between narration and anything else – what I was looking at may have come from a subtitle track or something – I haven’t seen the film since it was in theatres, and don’t remember this part very well.)
The article says that Damon was injured changing a tire, and that doesn’t fit with the remark about being ambushed.
So I guess it is still possible that he had absolutely no criticisms of the administration and was totally happy with his medical treatment, but had his remarks placed in the context of other men who were dissatisfied. Does anyone have a copy of the DVD handy for clarification?
Well, it is a thread about a lawsuit, and all. Pardon me for assuming you were posting something relevant to the fucking OP. I’ll try not to make that mistake again in the future.
Since what you’re describing covers probably 90% of Bricker’s posts, will you point me toward one where you lambaste him over this?
-Joe
Not every post in a lawsuit discussion thread is about the finer points of law. In all fairness, when I’m not making a point about the law, and people are going to think I am, I should be clearer that I’m talking ethics and not law.
You’re saying you think that filming a documentary you disagree with is treasonous?
Have you ever heard of freedom of speech? You’re calling for one of our most cherished and important rights to be abrogated because someone used it to express something you don’t like - actually, wouldn’t that mean you’re the one giving aid to our enemies? Since they hate our freedoms, then clearly you’re helping them out by trying to destroy our freedoms.
I know this phrase has been used facetiously, but I’m deadly serious. Why do you hate America, kanicbird? Why do you hate the freedoms it stands for?
Because, for some reason, libruls are allowed to exercise them.
What kind of bullshit system allows that?
-Joe
Larry, having just viewed the relevant section, i can tell you that you are indeed correct that your transcript actually comprises two different conversations from two different people. Here’s how it actually appears in the film:
As far as i can tell, that is Damon’s only appearance in the movie.
For those who actually want to see Damon’s segment in a slightly broader context, i’ve uploaded a short clip from the movie to my webspace. This clip is under 2 minutes long, from a 2+ hour movie, and i think that the length and the (poor) quality of the clip put it well within the realm of fair use for purposes of education or criticism.
Link (XVid avi file, about 4Mb)
The clip starts with U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, then there are a couple of short comments from other injured soldiers, then Damon appears at about the 24sec mark, followed by the other soldier in the hospital in Kentucky.
As far as i can tell, the main reason for having Damon in the film was as an example of just how horrific some of the returning soldiers’ injuries were. Sure, Moore had a point to make, and he used Damon to help him make it, but i think it’s a complete stretch to suggest that Damon’s words were taken out of context or in any way misrepresented in the movie, or that it was made to appear as if Damon opposed the war.
I have no opinion on the legaility of the thing or the merits of the suit.
To me though, it’s a real dick move on Michael Moore’s part to exploit a horribly wounded soldier and his wounds and misrepresent his statements to serve an agenda the soldier is opposed to.
In an interview I saw MM talked about how he made his documentaries because he really does love the country and he can’t stand to see how people are exploited and misled and he wants to present the truth. Then he sang “God Bless America” to show that he was serious about wanting to sing it (with whoever, I forget) and was not trying to belittle it or be ironic.
I understand that mistakes happen, and that you can edit things and make bad decisions without bad intent.
I think if MM acknowledged the error and apologized to the soldier, I would be forced to take him a lot more seriously than I do, and actually take seriously the respect and concern he claims to have for our soldiers.
There’s nothing about this on MMs website and I searched within the site for the name of the soldier, and there’s nothing there.
Exactly how are the soldier’s statements misrepresented?
No-one has yet offered any compelling argument that this was even the case. Hell, if you’re going to assert that something bad was done, at least watch the video i posted and make an argument for this alleged misrepresentation.
:rolleyes:
Why the hell would there be?
If someone was suing you for untold millions of dollars, would you make a public comment about the issue on your website?
If he apologizes, he effectively admits wrongdoing, lending support to the plaintiff’s case, and if he makes any statements in his own defense it just gives the plaintiff’s lawyers more ammunition for their case.
Jesus, i thought even the biggest fucking dunces on this board realized that speaking publicly about an ongoing lawsuit in which one is involved is usually considered a Very Bad Idea.