Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

Moore is a focking lying, manipulative idiot. Which is a shame b/c it casts serious credibility doubt upon the portions of his work which MAY be true.

 

Worth $75M? Doubtful. As Lying is Lying, frivolous is frivolous.

[MDC 7,888]

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.

 

Dave is frothing at the mouth hoping this guy wins his frivolous law suit.

[hoytdwow 202]

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.

All I'm saying is that it's going to require an interpretive leap from a judge/jury to rule in his favor. What if the judge/jury says, "I do not interpret the sequencing of scenes in this film in a way that shows the soldier as feeling left behind or being anti-war"? What if, instead, the interpretation is that the scene with the congressman is a definite anti-war statement about soldiers being left behind, while the soldier's hospital footage is merely present to illustrate that the war has real consequences for people?

I'm not making any value judgments or being pro-Moore. I think Roger and Me was excellent, but his other work not so greta. Although I haven't seen F911.

 

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant (again).

Also, he didn't "splice it in" they are 2 separate scenes in the film.

[davebg 0]

Dave is frothing at the mouth hoping this guy wins his frivolous law suit.

I came up w/a more intelligent, relevant question that directly pertains to this subject than you did.

 

Itsatip that jealousy...

[Strike 6,023]

All I'm saying is that it's going to require an interpretive leap from a judge/jury to rule in his favor. I think Roger and Me was excellent, but his other work not so greta. Although I haven't seen F911.

 

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant (again).

Also, he didn't "splice it in" they are 2 separate scenes in the film.

 

I haven't see F911 either. And yes, that's why we have a court system, to make the judgement as to whether Moore intentionally misrepresented this guy and, if so, if he should be held liable. I do find it humorous that you admit you haven't seen the film but then go on to make a value judgement as to the validity of his claims. LOL.

[MDC 7,888]

I came up w/a more intelligent, relevant question that directly pertains to this subject than you did.

 

Itsatip that jealousy...

 

[davebg 0]

All I'm saying is that it's going to require an interpretive leap from a judge/jury to rule in his favor. What if the judge/jury says, "I do not interpret the sequencing of scenes in this film in a way that shows the soldier as feeling left behind or being anti-war"? What if, instead, the interpretation is that the scene with the congressman is a definite anti-war statement about soldiers being left behind, while the soldier's hospital footage is merely present to illustrate that the war has real consequences for people?

I'm not making any value judgments or being pro-Moore. I think Roger and Me was excellent, but his other work not so greta. Although I haven't seen F911.

 

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant (again).

Also, he didn't "splice it in" they are 2 separate scenes in the film.

I'm not saying this guy will win. I'd like to see him win, although I think $85Mil is pretty focking crazy.

 

My point was that this is what Moore does. He takes two separate, unrelated clips, then edits them together to make his own reality...then presents it to hte audience as the truth.

 

It doesn't really matter if he takes two different speeches by Heston or a statement by a congressman and a wounded soldier and does it.

 

What he is doing is morally wrong.

 

Is it illegal? I don't think so.

 

Does that mean that he is not liable for damages in a civil trial? I don't think so...the lawyers and a jury will likely decide that.

[hoytdwow 202]

. I do find it humorous that you admit you haven't seen the film but then go on to make a value judgement as to the validity of his claims. LOL.

If you're talking about davebg's claims, they are invalid because they concern other films.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Dave is frothing at the mouth hoping this guy wins his frivolous law suit.

 

if you agree that what Moore did is wrong (misrepresenting the wounded soldier), then what consequences (if any) should there be?

 

IS it the dollar amount that has you so put off? I can understand that. (How did they arrive at that large amount?)

[davebg 0]

If you're talking about davebg's claims, they are invalid because they concern other films.

Actually, unlike a criminal trial, where previous acts may or may not be admissable....in a civil trial previous acts like this, which show Moore's MO, as it were, would more than likely be presented during trial.

[MDC 7,888]

if you agree that what Moore did is wrong (misrepresenting the wounded soldier), then what consequences (if any) should there be?

 

IS it the dollar amount that has you so put off? I can understand that. (How did they arrive at that large amount?)

 

If only consequences should be to Moore's reputation.

 

I'm partly put off by the dollar amount and the length of time this guy waited to file a suit - when you wait two years to file a suit and then ask for a ridiculous amount of cash for nothing but "emotional distress," immediately I'm thinking the case is BS.

 

But also, if the standards for what constitutes libel are this lax, how do we ever enforce it? This kind of misrepresentation goes on in politics every way. Should John Kerry be able to sue the Swift Boat Veterans for making claims they never supported?

[Strike 6,023]

If you're talking about davebg's claims, they are invalid because they concern other films.

 

Of course I'm not talking about any other claims. I'm talking about this vet who is suing Michael Moore. You said it would take an "interpretive leap" for a judge/jury to find in his favor, yet you haven't seen the film. It seems funny to me that you can make a judgement as to the value of his claims without at least having seen the work in question.

[hoytdwow 202]

It doesn't really matter if he takes two different speeches by Heston or a statement by a congressman and a wounded soldier and does it.

But it does matter. You are trying to implicate him in this current case because of his past work, which is of a totally different character.

Splicing Heston bits together and presenting it as one speech is completely different than connecting two separate, complete scenes which are then open to interpretation by the viewer as to their thematic relationship (or lack thereof). What if Moore's intent was for the soldier footage to be a transitional moment in the film?

 

Of course I'm not talking about any other claims. I'm talking about this vet who is suing Michael Moore. You said it would take an "interpretive leap" for a judge/jury to find in his favor, yet you haven't seen the film. It seems funny to me that you can make a judgement as to the value of his claims without at least having seen the work in question.

Why? They are described quite clearly in the article cited above.

[Strike 6,023]

If only consequences should be to Moore's reputation.

 

I'm partly put off by the dollar amount and the length of time this guy waited to file a suit - when you wait two years to file a suit and then ask for a ridiculous amount of cash for nothing but "emotional distress," immediately I'm thinking the case is BS.

 

But also, if the standards for what constitutes libel are this lax, how do we ever enforce it? This kind of misrepresentation goes on in politics every way. Should John Kerry be able to sue the Swift Boat Veterans for making claims they never supported?

 

As I've already stated, and you apparently didn't comprehend, public officials are held to a much higher standard than ordinary citizens. Something you and I could make a boatload on in a libel suit wouldn't even see a courtroom were it Bush or a hollywood actor.

[surferskin 31]

Should John Kerry be able to sue the Swift Boat Veterans for making claims they never supported?

 

only if the rest of the vietnam vets could sue kerry for all the shiit he made up.

[davebg 0]

But it does matter. You are trying to implicate him in this current case because of his past work, which is of a totally different character.

Splicing Heston bits together and presenting it as one speech is completely different than connecting two separate, complete scenes which are then open to interpretation by the viewer as to their thematic relationship (or lack thereof). What if Moore's intent was for the soldier footage to be a transitional moment in the film?

Why? They are described quite clearly in the article cited above.

It shows a pattern of misrepresentation and deception. That is why it is relevant.

[Strike 6,023]

Why? They are described quite clearly in the article cited above.

 

I would never attempt to decide a lawsuit based upon a two paragraph description when the actual footage is available. That would be irresponsible.

[hoytdwow 202]

It shows a pattern of misrepresentation and deception. That is why it is relevant.

One instance is a pattern of misrepresentation and deception?

[MDC 7,888]

only if the rest of the vietnam vets could sue kerry for all the shiit he made up.

 

Relax Sally, I was just making the point that if what Moore did to this guy is "libel" then we're going to open the floodgates to suing any politician, because this sort of thing (or worse) goes on during every election cycle.

[surferskin 31]

Relax Sally, I was just making the point that if what Moore did to this guy is "libel" then we're going to open the floodgates to suing any politician, because this sort of thing (or worse) goes on during every election cycle.

 

i didn't realize i wasn't relaxed.

 

btw, nice straw man.

[davebg 0]

One instance is a pattern of misrepresentation and deception?

There are many instances of misrepresentation and deception is Moore's movies. Below are two of the 11,700,000 results I get when I search for "michael moore + lies"

 

59 deceits in F911

The lies of Michael Moore

 

Itsatip that Google...

[hoytdwow 202]

I would never attempt to decide a lawsuit based upon a two paragraph description when the actual footage is available. That would be irresponsible.

What?

[Strike 6,023]

What?

 

Never mind. I didn't realize it was you I was responding to.

[TD Ryan2 316]

If only consequences should be to Moore's reputation.

 

I'm partly put off by the dollar amount and the length of time this guy waited to file a suit -

 

But also, if the standards for what constitutes libel are this lax, how do we ever enforce it? This kind of misrepresentation goes on in politics every way.

 

thank you for the level headed answer.

 

I don't know what the consequence should be either, but I'm not sure that a "mark on Moore's reputation" alone is enough.

 

Yes, this kind of misrepresentation goes on in politics (and elsewhere) all the time. You are correct there. Still, that doesn't make it right.

 

I've never been a Michael Moore hater... I've been rather indifferent towards him. But I have no doubt that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he put those clips together and really, it makes him loathesome.

[DanXIII 8]

Moore didn't interview the guy. He never even met him.

 

The guy gave an interview to a national news outlet. Moore purchased the interview and used it.

 

He never claimed the idiot that is suing was "anti-war" or lied about him in any way.

 

He simply showed footage of a guy who got his arms blown off in a stupid war, that should never have happened.

 

If that pisses the guy off, he should have thought longer before he gave a TV interview about his situation.

 

Once you sign the release to be on camera, you have no control over it. Unless they alter the actual footage, whoever uses it is fully within their rights to do so.

 

If this guy had a case (and he doesn't) then Fox News would be sued into oblivion for doing daily what Moore does.

 

Edit: His stint as an RWN public figure afterword won't help his case, either:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -- "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hope he wasn't compensated for either role...

 

Also, Soldiers are Public Employees - anyone pay attention to the SCOTUS ruling this week? His statements were taken while he was a public servant...

[davebg 0]

He never claimed the idiot that is suing was "anti-war" or lied about him in any way.

 

He simply showed footage of a guy who got his arms blown off in a stupid war, that should never have happened.

 

If that pisses the guy off, he should have thought longer before he gave a TV interview about his situation.

 

If this guy had a case (and he doesn't) then Fox News would be sued into oblivion.

Well, at least you gave an answer that showed us all how imparital you are.

 

alsonotreally

[DanXIII 8]

Well, at least you gave an answer that showed us all how imparital you are.

 

alsonotreally

 

I don't recall claiming that I am impartial. I am merely pointing out the obvious, and the legalities. Your hypocrisy is laughable considering your posting history.

[davebg 0]

I don't recall claiming that I am impartial. I am merely pointing out the obvious, and the legalities. Your hypocrisy is laughable considering your posting history.

Oh...I think I'm WAY more impartial than you.

 

If you actually bothered to check out my posts and opinions on a variety of social and political issues you'd know that it's not so easy to pidgeon hole me into the neocon camp, as I fall to the right on some issues, lean a little left on others and sit in the middle for the rest. My opinions are mine...not those of some political party.

 

I may have my opinions and strongly argue in favor of them, but I do not disparage and mock a fellow American who lost his limbs fighting for our country.

 

That sir, is like school on Thanksgiving.

 

No class...TURKEY!!!

[DanXIII 8]

Oh...I think I'm WAY more impartial than you.

 

I don't really care what you "think." I've been here reading your tripe for years now. You come down on the right hand side of the fence every single day on just about every issue. That makes you biased, no matter what you may think of yourself. At least one of us is honest about their political views.

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll gladly put my service record against yours any day of the week. With the possible exception of your wife, I seriously doubt you've seen a day of combat in your entire life.

 

You guys should stick with your "War on Christians" meme. It's just as silly but it isn't painful to point out the lack of logic in it. I don't enjoy pointing out the fact that a kid who got his arms blown off doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But he doesn't, and neither do you guys that are supporting him in this.

[davebg 0]

I don't really care what you "think." I've been here reading your tripe for years now. You come down on the right hand side of the fence every single day on just about every issue. That makes you biased, no matter what you may think of yourself. At least one of us is honest about their political views.

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll gladly put my service record against yours any day of the week. With the possible exception of your wife, I seriously doubt you've seen a day of combat in your entire life.

I don't recall ever claiming to have served in the military. I'm guessing you have. Too bad I seem to have more respect for your fellow soldiers and their sacrifices than you do.

 

ETA: Not really sure what you were talking about w/the "war on Christians" meme...but FYI I'm not a Christian, nor am I a fan of the Church. If you were as familiar w/my posts as you claim to be, then you'd already know that.

[MDC 7,888]

I don't recall ever claiming to have served in the military. I'm guessing you have. Too bad I seem to have more respect for your fellow soldiers and their sacrifices than you do.

 

Why do I get the feeling your reverence for our military doesn't apply to Kerry, Gore, Murtha, etc. You don't like Michael Moore and that's fine, but please spare us the song and dance about how this guy has a case for libel.

[davebg 0]

Why do I get the feeling your reverence for our military doesn't apply to Kerry, Gore, Murtha, etc. You don't like Michael Moore and that's fine, but please spare us the song and dance about how this guy has a case for libel.

Please show me where I said he had a case for libel.

 

You can't b/c I never said it.

 

In fact, I even posed the question of whether or not a crime has to have been committed for someone to win a judgement in a civil trial. I don't think it's required, but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure.

[MDC 7,888]

Please show me where I said he had a case for libel.

 

You can't b/c I never said it.

 

In fact, I even posed the question of whether or not a crime has to have been committed for someone to win a judgement in a civil trial. I don't think it's required, but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure.

 

You said Dan had no class for mocking a solidier. I'm just pointing out that your do that on a regular basis.

 

Good night.

[Strike 6,023]

You said Dan had no class for mocking a solidier. I'm just pointing out that your do that on a regular basis.

 

Good night.

 

There's a difference between mocking a soldier who is acting as a soldier vs. mocking one who has been out of the military and is now in a civilian role. I doubt any of us have mocked Kerry for his service. His presidential run is another story and certainly worthy of being mocked.

[DanXIII 8]

I don't think it's required

 

You are correct.

[DanXIII 8]

There's a difference between mocking a soldier who is acting as a soldier vs. mocking one who has been out of the military and is now in a civilian role. I doubt any of us have mocked Kerry for his service. His presidential run is another story and certainly worthy of being mocked.

 

Good point.

 

People who are familiar with Max Cleland know that, regardless of past military service and any affliction suffered therefrom, once you stick your nose into the political arena you open yourself up for criticism.

[DrJ 0]

I have full insurance.

 

Basically, the difference in pay, at least for my profession, between my contracting gig and a full time job makes up for more than the 7% matching and paid time off. The only difference is my job can be very unstable at times and requires me to keep a nest egg for at least 3 months of all bills. But it also allows flexibility in my work schedule and I have more choices in the jobs I want to do.

 

I'd prefer the big paycheck, along with stability, guaranteeing that my job is close to home, the 401K, 3 weeks of vacation, another week of paid time off in the summer, 7.5 hour work days, 10 paid holidays, another day off to volunteer for charity, flexible work hours, a stock purchase plan, and a pension plan.

 

That's why I became a Unix geek.

 

And if I ever did go the contractor route, I wouldn't need 3 months of nest egg. It's impossible for a skilled Unix SA to be out of work that long except by choice.

 

Take that!

[MDC 7,888]

There's a difference between mocking a soldier who is acting as a soldier vs. mocking one who has been out of the military and is now in a civilian role. I doubt any of us have mocked Kerry for his service. His presidential run is another story and certainly worthy of being mocked.

 

I'm assuming that because this guy has no arms, he's now out of military service and by your logic it's OK to mock his frivolous lawsuit.

[Strike 6,023]

I'm assuming that because this guy has no arms, he's now out of military service and by your logic it's OK to mock his frivolous lawsuit.

 

Well you'd be wrong. At least Dan got the point.

[MDC 7,888]

Well you'd be wrong. At least Dan got the point.

 

Any way you want it.

 

Either this guy is exempt from criticism because of his service, in which case so are Gore, Kerry, etc. or he's not because now he's decided to enter the public arena.

 

Personally I think once you file a bullsh1t lawsuit against a public figure you open yourself up to this kind of criticism. I respect the guy's service but unfortunately, it seems like he's trying to make a quick dime.