Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film

[D_House 0]

your out of line cuz Bush lied about WMDs.

 

ETA: -80-

[surferskin 31]

No, it was necessary to show how focked up the war is and to show what kind of good people are not going to get the benifits and help they deserve. It has nothing to do with the view the soldier has or the way he feels about the president. Got me?

 

no, you're right. it's prefectly acceptable to make your case against the war by any means necessary...even if it means quoting a supporter of war out of context to make your anti-war case.

[Isotopes 1]

no, you're right. it's prefectly acceptable to make your case against the war by any means necessary...even if it means quoting a supporter of war out of context to make it anti-war case.

 

How about if you make a case for war by cherry picking infomration and totally disregarding information that refutes what you are telling the Amnerican people. Is that ok? I am not saying Moore is ok for doing it because Bush did it first, they are both douchebags. I am just betting that you will defend Bush and attack Moore for pretty much the same thing.

[ArnieBragg 2]

Plot Summary for Fahrenheit 9/11½ (2007)

 

In the wake of the 2004 United States Presidential election, Michael Moore continues to examine what happened to the United States after September 11, and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

no, you're right. it's prefectly acceptable to make your case against the war by any means necessary...even if it means quoting a supporter of war out of context to make your anti-war case.

 

Well, I can see how this could be. You could have someone who is an idiot who is for the war (or GWB) and the opposition uses his quotes (in context) to further their argument. It happens all of the time with gocolts

[surferskin 31]

How about if you make a case for war by cherry picking infomration and totally disregarding information that refutes what you are telling the Amnerican people. Is that ok? I am not saying Moore is ok for doing it because Bush did it first, they are both douchebags. I am just betting that you will defend Bush and attack Moore for pretty much the same thing.

 

are you like 5 years old? is your defense of moore, other people have done the same thing or worse? be consistant...if you're really outraged about bush "misleading" us into the war be outraged about moore trying to mislead us in his movie.

[FranksTanks 0]

no, you're right. it's prefectly acceptable to make your case against the war by any means necessary...even if it means quoting a supporter of war out of context to make it anti-war case.

 

The scene wasn’t making a case against the war. His quote had nothing to do with his personal feelings about the war, it was about his pain and to show an example of they type of soldier that will be left behind by this administration given the previous scenes quotes.

The point of the scene is obviously way over your head so I'm done talking about it.

[surferskin 31]

The scene wasn’t making a case against the war. His quote had nothing to do with his personal feelings about the war, it was about his pain and to show an example of they type of soldier that will be left behind by this administration given the previous scenes quotes.

The point of the scene is obviously way over your head so I'm done talking about it.

 

yeah, it's over my head. then i guess this whole thread is over yours. i'll break it down real simple for you:

 

if you're going call someone a liar (moore to bush) then you better not lie yourself to make your point.

[Isotopes 1]

are you like 5 years old? is your defense of moore, other people have done the same thing or worse? be consistant...if you're really outraged about bush "misleading" us into the war be outraged about moore trying to mislead us in his movie.

 

Can you read? I said that they are both douchebags and it was not alright for Moore to do it. I was making my case against your outrage here when you were not outraged when Bush did it. I am outraged by both, you are the one who isn't.

[FranksTanks 0]

yeah, it's over my head. then i guess this whole thread is over yours. i'll break it down real simple for you:

 

if you're going call someone a liar (moore to bush) then you better not lie yourself to make your point.

 

It's not a lie to show a soldier in pain. Did Moore say this soldier didn't like Bush? No.

[parrot 789]

DISCLAIMER: I think Michael Moore is a complete douche, who will gladly twist any point he can to try and make his case. The liberal Bill O'Reilly if you will.

 

I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on this because other than the no permission angle I can't see this guy as having much of a case. I'm not sure that using someone's own words in that way, even if you're setting them up in a way that you know it's likely to be misconstrued, is a libelous act. If that is the case we're likely to see a whole lot more of these cases coming up in the future.

[surferskin 31]

Can you read? I said that they are both douchebags and it was not alright for Moore to do it. I was making my case against your outrage here when you were not outraged when Bush did it. I am outraged by both, you are the one who isn't.

 

have i even said, i'm not upset about what bush has done? no...YOU were bringing bush into this. so, you make a buncha assumptions on what i think and "i can't read"?

[MDC 7,888]

are you like 5 years old? is your defense of moore, other people have done the same thing or worse? be consistant...if you're really outraged about bush "misleading" us into the war be outraged about moore trying to mislead us in his movie.

 

Because making a misleading propaghanda movie is as big a crime as lying about the reasons for war in Iraq.

[Toro 3]

Because making a misleading propaghanda movie is as big a crime as lying about the reasons for war in Iraq.

 

Lying is lying.

[surferskin 31]

It's not a lie to show a soldier in pain. Did Moore say this soldier didn't like Bush? No.

 

talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees.

[MDC 7,888]

Lying is lying.

 

Is one lie superior to the other.

[Toro 3]

Is one lie superior to the other.

 

Yes. But hey, since we are talking about Michael Mooron, how about we stay on subject? Just because Bush lied and is a complete fockup doesn't give Moore a free pass.

[MDC 7,888]

Yes. But hey, since we are talking about Michael Mooron, how about we stay on subject? Just because Bush lied and is a complete fockup doesn't give Moore a free pass.

 

I didn't bring Bush into it. Just pointing out the stupidity of surferskin implying that we should be equally outraged by "Fahrenheit 911" as we are by Bush's lies.

 

Carry on.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Bush lied about WMDs.

Sadly, this is what the soldier is really outraged about. But I guess it's kinda tough to sue a prez?

[Snoopy1 0]

how is this frivolous? the amount of money he's asking for might be excessive but his stance is legit.

 

 

How is his stance legit? Did Moore steal the footage from NBC news? If not, then he signed a release giving NBC permission to use, distribute and sell said footage...now because he doesn't like how/who used the footage, he gets to sue for 85M?

 

Sounds completely frivolous.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Since GWB's Administration is in favor of limiting liability and curbing frivolous lawsuits, does anyone think that GWB is going to come to Miramax's rescue on this one?

[surferskin 31]

How is his stance legit? Did Moore steal the footage from NBC news? If not, then he signed a release giving NBC permission to use, distribute and sell said footage...now because he doesn't like how/who used the footage, he gets to sue for 85M?

 

Sounds completely frivolous.

 

do you know what he signed? plus, how did he sign anything with no arms? but i digress...i'm sure whatever he signed didn't say anything about twisting his words to make moore's point.

[MDC 7,888]

do you know what he signed? plus, how did he sign anything with no arms? but i digress...i'm sure whatever he signed didn't say anything about twisting his words to make moore's point.

 

I like how all the GOPers who'd normally be complaining about frivolous lawsuits are now totally on board with this guy getting $85M for his "pain and suffering" because someone didn't portray his words correctly. Like that doesn't happen in politics every day of the week.

 

Why stop at $85M? This guy should get to be King of America for a year!

[surferskin 31]

I like how all the GOPers who'd normally be complaining about frivolous lawsuits are now totally on board with this guy getting $85M for his "pain and suffering" because someone didn't portray his words correctly. Like that doesn't happen in politics every day of the week.

 

Why stop at $85M? This guy should get to be King of America for a year!

 

has anyone in the thread said this guy deserves 85 million? i just think this guy does deserve some type of recourse for unknowingly getting wrapped up in moore's lie. i guess this lawsuit is his best shot.

[Snoopy1 0]

do you know what he signed? plus, how did he sign anything with no arms? but i digress...i'm sure whatever he signed didn't say anything about twisting his words to make moore's point.

 

 

Pretty much, yes I do know what he signed, since it's a standard CYA operating procedure to procure releases used in television and news(I have a stack of em at work). And again, once that release is signed he basically doesn't have the right to ###### how his likeness is used.

 

I guess he better hope he gets you on the jury.

[surferskin 31]

Pretty much, yes I do know what he signed, since it's a standard CYA operating procedure to procure releases used in television and news(I have a stack of em at work). And again, once that release is signed he basically doesn't have the right to ###### how his likeness is used.

 

I guess he better hope he gets you on the jury.

 

just because someone makes you sign a disclaimer, it does not mean they release themselves of any liability.

 

HTH

[MDC 7,888]

has anyone in the thread said this guy deserves 85 million? i just think this guy does deserve some type of recourse for unknowingly getting wrapped up in moore's lie. i guess this lawsuit is his best shot.

 

What exactly does he deserve compensation for? For having video footage of himself, which I'm guessing isn't his property or he'd be suing on those grounds, used in a misleading way? Since when do you get a dime for that? Have you ever seen a political ad on TV?

 

Really, just knock off the charade and say you hate Michael Moore and think he's a fat lying fock. You're not going to get many (any?) arguments here. You just look silly acting like you think this suit has merit.

[TD Ryan2 316]

partisanship and our legal system... ruining the country.

 

It's really pretty simple:

- Soldier is injured while serving his country

- Something that the injured soldier said was taken out of context

- The soldier is pissed off about it

 

 

the media does this all the time in our country.

I don't know that it's "illegal" per say to misrepresent someone the way Moore did. But regardless of who you voted for, you should be able to recognize that it is WRONG.

 

Legality and Morality are not the same thing.

Right and Wrong don't always apply to legal and illegal.

 

The gruesome nature of the injuries just magnifies the issue; it is likely the reason the Moore used him in the film to begin with and also likely the reason that he's ready to pull a Lieutenant Dan because he feels his year(s) of service are no somehow dishonored.

[Strike 6,023]

What exactly does he deserve compensation for? For having video footage of himself, which I'm guessing isn't his property or he'd be suing on those grounds, used in a misleading way? Since when do you get a dime for that? Have you ever seen a political ad on TV?

 

Really, just knock off the charade and say you hate Michael Moore and think he's a fat lying fock. You're not going to get many (any?) arguments here. You just look silly acting like you think this suit has merit.

 

It's called Libel. And public figures are held to a different standard than your average serviceman. HTH

[TD Ryan2 316]

What exactly does he deserve compensation for? For having video footage of himself, which I'm guessing isn't his property or he'd be suing on those grounds, used in a misleading way? Since when do you get a dime for that? Have you ever seen a political ad on TV?

 

Really, just knock off the charade and say you hate Michael Moore and think he's a fat lying fock. You're not going to get many (any?) arguments here. You just look silly acting like you think this suit has merit.

 

 

forget lawsuits.

 

Do you think it was right or wrong of Moore to portray the soldier as one who felt he was "left behind by the military and government"?

[surferskin 31]

What exactly does he deserve compensation for? For having video footage of himself, which I'm guessing isn't his property or he'd be suing on those grounds, used in a misleading way? Since when do you get a dime for that? Have you ever seen a political ad on TV?

 

Really, just knock off the charade and say you hate Michael Moore and think he's a fat lying fock. You're not going to get many (any?) arguments here. You just look silly acting like you think this suit has merit.

 

i don't know what this guy "deserves" but he does have the right to do what he's doing.

 

michael moore is fat lying fock...i don't think i've ever said otherwise.

[MDC 7,888]

forget lawsuits.

 

Do you think it was right or wrong of Moore to portray the soldier as one who felt he was "left behind by the military and government"?

 

I don't remember the footage but at face value of course it's wrong to deliberately misportray someone's words/opinions. But the reality is this kind of thing happens every day, especially among public figures in politics. So yeah, what Moore did was wrong but to act like this guy is entitled to something for it is IMO pretty absurd, esp. at the level of compensation he's asking for.

[hoytdwow 202]

forget lawsuits.

 

Do you think it was right or wrong of Moore to portray the soldier as one who felt he was "left behind by the military and government"?

He didn't portray the soldier in any way. He inserted the NBC clip into the film intact. He didn't edit it, or screw around with it. The soldier's complaint is that the clip follows footage of some Congressman saying soldiers have been left behind, and so there is an appearance that he (the soldier) therefore feels he has been left behind.

He's basically complaining about the way the film was edited.

[TD Ryan2 316]

He didn't. He inserted the NBC clip into his movie intact. He didn't edit it, or screw around with it. The soldier's complaint is that the clip follows footage of some Congressman saying soldiers have been left behind, and so there is an appearance that he (the soldier) therefore feels he has been left behind.

He's basically complaining about the way the film was edited.

 

are you suggesting that what Moore did wasn't purposely underhanded or in some way wrong?

 

It would be like me writing an outline that went something like this:

 

I. Gays on the Internet

a. hoytdwow

[hoytdwow 202]

are you suggesting that what Moore did wasn't purposely underhanded or in some way wrong?

 

It would be like me writing an outline that went something like this:

 

I. Gays on the Internet

a. hoytdwow

I don't know, I haven't seen the film. Have you?

I'm just saying that based on the lawsuit, the guy's just pissed about where his footage appears.

[davebg 0]

He didn't portray the soldier in any way. He inserted the NBC clip into the film intact. He didn't edit it, or screw around with it. The soldier's complaint is that the clip follows footage of some Congressman saying soldiers have been left behind, and so there is an appearance that he (the soldier) therefore feels he has been left behind.

He's basically complaining about the way the film was edited.

How about the time in Bowling for Columbine when Moore used clips of different speeches by Heston (where he was wearing a different tie ) and he spliced them together to make a new speech that Heston never actually gave?

 

Moore didn't do anything but take clips and edit them the way he wanted. Do you consider that portraying someone (in this case Heston) in a particular way?

[hoytdwow 202]

Do you consider that portraying someone (in this case Heston) in a particular way?

Yes. But this is not relevant to the current discussion. According to the article, the NBC footage is intact.

[davebg 0]

Yes. But this is not relevant to the current discussion. According to the article, the NBC footage is intact.

It is totally relevant.

 

In F911 Moore took footage negative of the war & the administration, then spliced in this footage of the soldier giving the impression that the soldier shared the views presented in the previous scene.

 

In BFC Moore took footage of one speech, then cut to footage of another speech, givign the impression that they were the same speech.

 

To take TD Ryan's analogy one step further.

 

I show a clip of gay porn. Then I cut to a clip of you. Both clips are intact. They have not been cut or modified in any way. However, they have been edited to give off a false impression about you...(maybe )

[TD Ryan2 316]

I don't know, I haven't seen the film. Have you?

I'm just saying that based on the lawsuit, the guy's just pissed about where his footage appears.

 

I have watched 'Fahrenheit 9-11.

And while it is a left wing piece of propaganda, it does make a few interesting points about our political leaders and their conflicting interests. Overall it was entertaining.

 

Moore is clearly talking about how the military is failing its personnel and how soldiers are being left behind... it's like:

I. Soldiers Being left behind

a. Sgt Peter Damon, soldier who got blowed up and is missing his arms

 

 

it doesn't matter what your political views are. This poor bastard had his arms blown off while in the service of his country. There's no need for any media jackass (right or left wing) to come along misrepresent ANY of his story.

 

again.

Wrong? yes.

Illegal? probably not (but maybe it should be)

[davebg 0]

Illegal? probably not (but maybe it should be)

Does something even have to be illegal for someone to win a civil judgement?

 

This isn't a criminal trial...this is a civil trial. I know that the burden of proof is much less for a civil trial, but does there even have to be a crime to have a civil trial? I can think of plenty of instances where people sue one another in a civil court over things that have nothing to do w/a crime.