Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11
POSTED BY: Amiton
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 03:06
VIEWED: 12492
PAGE 2 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."
In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."
I don't think this is right.
The damages in this case are directly related to the success of the movie. Moore made alot of money with this movie, so asking for alot of money is reasonable, especially if all the allegations contained in the news report are accurate.
In essense Moore took this man's likeness without his permission, then cropped it in such a way as to completely misrepresent this person's belief's. As a result the veteran has suffered damage to his reputation among his friends and been made the subject of international scrutiny he did not seek and would not have consented to. Further, it was done under the worst possible circumstances.
In essense Mr. Moore preyed upon an innocent and unknowing wounded soldier, suffering untold anguish and exploited him for political purposes and financial gain. But then Moore is just following the Democratic playbook. Look how they treat the blacks...
H
Yes, the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was a splendid piece of audio/visual manipulation, and I enjoyed it. Without a doubt there were some things in that movie that are totally questionable, but on the whole the message of the movie still rang a certain measure of truth. It's not like the current administrations actions haven’t in any way dispelled the image that the movie has placed on it. No, it only confirms it. A bunch of crook they are.
Sure the people that were hurt by this movie should sue, but $85 million dollars? I don't think so.
Also, don't even get me started on what I think about your comment regarding the Democrat’s treatment of blacks in America. It’s not a party issue. Saying that suggests that it was totally politics, and not the PEOPLE who screwed with the blacks here in America to the point where they are so fragmented, and used by all the other races and used politically by BOTH parties. Don’t get me started on this subject because I won’t let it go, nor will I back down.
Anyway. $85 million dollars is too much. I smell a rat. There has to be a reason why this is all coming out now.
River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
85 Million is WAAY to much.
Certainly when you consider what a war widow gets from the US Governmnet.
If she is lucky, she gets 250,000 for insurance, and then social security - OH and then she gets 2 weeks to vacate military housing if she is in it.
Michael Moore is an ass. But he asks those questions the rest of us should have asked long ago.
So whats this about Democrats treating blacks badly? WTF are you talking about?
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I think once the broadcast is aired, the broadcaster 'owns' the rights to it. I know there've been issues on versions of the situation - example: people being filmed (w/out their permission) being dragged out of wrecked cars by EMTs and then being aired on the news. Who has rights over the image? However, as I said, I believe that once a broadcaster gets permission and airs footage, they own the rights to it and the person(s) in the footage don't have legal standing.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Sure the people that were hurt by this movie should sue, but $85 million dollars? I don't think so.
You never sue people for what you really expect to get. Starting at $85 million with a very sypathetic client (war vet w/no arms sitting in court proud of his service) starts the negotiations in at least 7 figures. I'd be looking for $8.5-12M on a case like this.
But thats not because its a bad case...its because thats what it'll take to settle it now. If they fight, they may well win $85M but it'll take years to do it.
Quote:
Also, don't even get me started on what I think about your comment regarding the Democrat’s treatment of blacks in America.
The Civil Rights movement, like many other liberal movements like Equal Right, Unions, etc, has very noble origins from good, often religeous folk coming together to right a very real and apparent social injustice. They were very successful. The Civil Rights Movement was hijacked in the late '60s and '70s and progress was slowed down. Liberal Democratic Black leaders have made millions fighting injustice. Its a fight they cannot win lest they lose their livlihood so now they work to retard progress. Thats why other minorities have surpassed blacks in so many areas.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, those good old boy republicans who put troops on black marchers were certianly WAAAYYY better than democrats.
So, Zer0, can you answer any of my questions?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like the case hinges on what Moore allegedly implied was this man's oppinion about the President. Good luck proving that one! 
The argument is moronic. Moore put a suffering soldier on film and I'm supposed to believe that the soldier endorses Moore's oppinions because of it?
Whoopsie, am I on the wrong planet again??? 
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
85 Million is WAAY to much.
Certainly when you consider what a war widow gets from the US Governmnet.
If she is lucky, she gets 250,000 for insurance, and then social security - OH and then she gets 2 weeks to vacate military housing if she is in it.
Just as a point of interest, FMF, this is a little off. I don't have my most recent notes from when I was a Family Liason for an Active Duty death handy right now, but the benefits are a little better than that.
The insurance is up to $400K (tax-free) now, as well as the unpaid salary, allowances, and leave balances, which is usually at least a few hundred. Then there is a death gratuity that is something like $700. GI Bill benefits usually carry over to the dependents if there isn't already free tuition at a state university in that particular state (or the state of the Home of Record). Social Security pays out for the each of the dependents up to the age of something like 17, which adds up for a while. The housing and base access and organizations was recently increased from six months to one year. There is also a bill lost somewhere in the legislature to increase the life insurance for death in a war zone to $750K or so.
Like I said, I don't have my notes with me right now. The active duty death benefits really aren't bad, and I don't know of another insurance policy that will pay out in the case of suicide (even though they're not supposed to). Not that it compares to the insane sum of money being asked for in the suit, nor does it replace the lost family member, but none of the families of friends of mine that have died have been in very bad shape after the loss of their loved one.
Amiton.
ETA: If the spouse is in military housing they have one year to vacate and/or housing allowance. Even if they move into civilian housing, the pay for the allowance continues for the year whether they were in government quarters or not. (Did that make any sense at all?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I wonder if Damon was coming up to a statute of limitations for lawsuits. You know, strike while the iron's hot, make hay while the sun shines, get while the gettin's good, never let an opportunity pass you by.
There's a lot of details I'm hazy on. Did NBC broadcast it? Does that put it in the public domain? Does NBC have copyrights on it?
Then too, did Moore imply the vet himself felt left behind? (by the US, not by god). Or, in context, was he just an example of those Moore said were being left behind, but not implying any personal position on the part of the vet.
I can imagine a newscast like this: the NO Superdome crowds in the background of a news clip with one or to faces particularly visible. This clip being used later in a documentary where the filmmaker says "these people abandoned by government..."
Would one of those identifiable backdrop people used to illustrate the clip have the right to sue claiming they didn't FEEL abandoned?
Not defending either side (though the lawsuit does seem opportunistic), but these details bug me.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
Rue,
I'm not going to try to claim to have the "real" answers to your questions =) I do have some thoughts, though.
First, I don't think your Superdome analogy transfers properly. This soldier wasn't part of a mass image described with an overgeneralization. He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but that *has* to be actionabale. Not to the tune of $85M, but what exactly would be an adequate figure to actually *punish* the behavior? I don't even have the answer to my own question. My debate skills are deteriorating faster than I had previously believed...
Why three years? I don't know. I do know that a *huge* percentage of the military that I'm personally acquainted with were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie, and not one of them were willing to go see it in the theater because they wanted him to fail before he really got started. When the antics that he pulled in making the movie came to light, quite a significant amount of time had passed. I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out, and I don't think they started production until after F9/11 was released.
There's also the statement (if it's true) that there was a year of good faith attempts by the soldier's lawyer to keep this out of court. If that's true then the time frame still seems long, but not unrealistic. There is a lot of things that make this seem opportunistic, and I'm sure at most levels it is, but it doesn't invalidate what is being said in my opinion.
Amiton.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is my snarky solution to the whole thing.
116 minutes - length of Fahrenheit 9/11 ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm )*
10 seconds - length of the Peter Damon clip ( http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/222345p-191015c.html )
So video of Peter Damon represents 1/696 of the movie. Easy. Just pay him off 1/696 of the domestic net and be done with it (edited to add: The reason why I went with domestic net is because, as Americans, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks so there's no skin off Peter Damon's nose for any non-US opinions ).
$6 million - production cost of Fahrenheit 9/11 ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm )
$15 million - total outlay **
$119,194,771 - domestic gross
1/696 of $104.2 million is $149,705.13
Just cut him a check for $150K and everyone's happy (except for the lawyers - screw 'em).
* IMdB has a slightly higher number but I'll go what will maximize the payout
** from all the various Serenity box office speculation I recall that a movie isn't considered profitable unless it pulls in 2.5 to 3 times the production costs
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gee, um as a Navy wife, your numbers are the ones that are off.
Having recently had friends that have had loved ones killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you that what you have detailed is not happening.
The SGLI has only recently been increased to a maximum of $400,000. And not all service members carry that much. And Wowhee! A whole $700.00 for a death benefit! I guess that is to offset the overpayment you get charged if your spouse is killed after payday.
Have you actually looked at how much SSI (Social Security) you would get for a child. I did. About $211 per child. Thats a big help.
As for the access to housing and base access. Base commanders have always had the option to allow families to stay in housing for up to 6 months. It is very rarely used. All of the widows I know where given 2 weeks. In one instance, the moving truck showed up at the door before the widow got back from the funeral.
I suppose that the fact they can be buried in a national cemetary is a plus, although I don't know many people can afford the fare to get to one.
My insurance policy pays out $500,000 even in the case of a suicide. And I pay dearly for that.
All in all, the benefits offered to the military community in both death benefits as well as wage are criminal. Especially when counted against the wages of politicians.
If one wants to support the troops - be vocal on paying them a living wage.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME