Michael Moore using quotes out of context (9/11 R)
Dabney_Soulman
890 Posts
taken from the E! Entertainment intranet:Michael Moore Sued by Iraq War Vet[/b]by Natalie Finn May 31, 2006, 9:30 PM PTIt seems as if the fallout caused by Fahrenheit 9/11 will never die down. A Massachusetts national guardsman filed an $85 million lawsuit against Michael Moore in Suffolk Superior Court last week, accusing the filmmaker of distorting a TV interview to portray the soldier as anti-war in his scathing 2004 documentary about the Bush administration post-Sept. 11, 2001. Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, has stated that Moore didn't have his permission to use pieces of the on-camera interview he gave in 2003 to an NBC Nightly News correspondent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. Damon's appearance in Fahrenheit 9/11 resulted in a "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation" for him, court documents state. Damon is suing for $75 million and his wife is seeking another $10 million for the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse." The lawsuit states that "[Fahrenheit 9/11] creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication of a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community." Damon, a double amputee, lost both of his arms while stationed in Iraq when a tire on a Black Hawk Helicopter he was servicing exploded. Another reservist was killed. In Moore's film Damon is shown lying on a gurney, covered in bandages. He says he feels as if he's "being crushed in a vise," adding, "but [the painkillers] do a lot to help it. And they take a lot of the edge off of it." The scene prior to Damon's features U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington state, saying, "You know, [those in the Bush administration] say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind." In his lawsuit, Damon has argued that the juxtaposition of those two scenes made it sound as if the military and the Bush administration had left him to grapple alone with pain or possibly even a drug addiction when, in reality, he "agrees with and supports the president and the United States' war effort and was not left behind." NBC had been questioning Damon about the painkiller he was using, a new drug the military was distributing to wounded veterans. "They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon told Fox News Tuesday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition." Miramax Films, NBC, and Lions Gate Entertainment are also named in the suit, according to Fox News. The controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 was a smash hit for Moore and Miramax, winning the Palme d'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival and grossing more than $222 million worldwide. The film, which focused pretty one-sidedly on the Bush administration's response to 9/11 (sorely lacking, according to Moore) and its instigation of the war in Iraq (inexcusable, Moore said) was passed over come Oscar time, however, partly because the director entered his production in the Best Picture category, rather than take a run at Best Documentary. Damon told the New York Post that Moore couldn't have picked a worse guy to pin the charge of being anti-war on. "I'm the most fortunate disabled guy," he said. "I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller]." Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, also weighed in with the Associated Press. "It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all that," Lynch said. Phone calls from the AP and Fox News to Moore and Miramax were not returned.
Comments
He ought to sue Bush for $85MIL for getting his arms blown off.
The guy has no case. He does not own the clip. No words were put in his mouth. Nothing was attributed to him. His reality was shown. If he is so pro Iraq war let fox news do a pro war documentary using that clip.
Military medical support has improved greatly partly because of clips like his. He should be proud.
Hey I am NOT a Michael Moore fan...seriously I think he's pretty much a piece of shit. However, this guy has absolutely no case. Just because Moore used a clip of this guy as an example doesn't mean the dude has to agree with what he was saying. If that were the case I'm guessing Dubya would have about 50 suits against Moore going right now. This is dumb, but I'm guessing his real aim with this lawsuit was to just grab some headlines and get his point of view out there, which he has obviously done.
Lots of people on 'the left' dislike Michael Moore, lots of people on 'the left' are very aware of how manipulative he is, lots of people on 'the left' think he's a huge fraud.
Litigious societies on blast!
Honestly, I'm as much against this war as anyone else here. However, this guy has a right to be mad. I don't share his beliefs, but imagine if you ardently believed in something - enough to take up arms and fight because of it - and then your opinion is broadcast accross the world as the exact opposite of what you believe becuase someone manipulated your words.
If I put my life on the line for my beliefs, got my arms blown off and had to live like that for the rest of my life becase of it, I'd be mad as hell if someone twisted those beliefs and represented them to the whole world as something they are not. I can only imainge this guy finds strength now in his beliefs even more after what happened.
But, hey, I guess if someone took your thoughts on funk and edited it to look like you were racist and then broadcast that accross the map and everytime you went digging your peers nudged each other and pointed you out as "that racist fuck from that movie, y'know the one with that fat dude" and discussed rolling on you, you'd be okay with that.
Yeah, but $75m worth of mad? - there's just no way you can ever hope to get sympathy when your talking figures like that. He's just suceeded in looking like a greedy fuck.
no one "manipulated his words" from what i can tell, they just used footage of him to prove a point. whether or not he agrees with that point is irrelevant. and if moore got permission from NBC to use the clip, which i imagine he did, this dude pretty much doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Lots of people "ardently believe" in lots of fucked up things, including war. If someone uses the example of this guys arms getting needlessly blown off because of this insane war, then so be it. His words weren't being manipulated, his situation was being used as an example. He doesn't really have any say in the matter, other than expressing a contrary opinion.
I'm not a lawyer or anything of the like, but I'm sure this is the kind of thing were you sue big hoping to move a bottom-line settlement/ruling up in $. Also, I'm sure it is that high in order to secure press - you know how America loves to try [sic?] cases in the press.
I'm not trying to say dude has a case. I would think this would get thrown out in a second. (Then again, there was the woman who successfully sued McDonald's...)
I'm just saying I could understand why he'd be pissed if I were in his shoes. And, not that you're saying this, but it is easy to act like: "fuck this dude, his opinion was fucked in the first place," but if it was the other way around and some right-wingers were flipping liberal/humane language maybe it'd be easier for people to 'sympathize'.
Cheers for this Hammertime some good
Have always assumed this case was just an example of the idiocy of modern lawsuits, good to see there's a bit more to the story than just a dumb person getting rewarded for stupidity.
He might have a case. Depending on which state he sues in, he could have a case under libel or "false-light", or both. You would think he would face an uphill battle since Moore used his own words, however, if they were shown out of context, he might win.
This might be one of the most unfortunate turns of a phrase I have ever read on the strut.
I don't really know, but I don't think it's the same thing. When ur a news outlet, you don't really have to worry about the same kinda things that you have to when you are an entertainment company.
ha i almost said "no pun intended" but i didn't want to draw attention to it...and it kind of was intended.
In my job we use a lot of bytes from interviews and have to be very careful not to have it be taken out of context, our legal team is very adamant about making sure that nothing can be taken the wrong way. These type of incidents are the reasons film and television shows have lawyers.
If what the soldier said is true, Michael Moore could very well lose this case but more importantly he compromised his ethical stance by doing such a sneaky move. IMO it really stands to lessen the respect Moore gained with this documentary.
When a film maker says "we can't trust those in power, let me tell you the truth" but uses lies to prove his point how much credibility does he really have?
wait, i can answer that one, NONE. Its none, right?
I'm pretty sure he had no credibility with you in the first place
Also, I think the reason you sue for so much, is because you don't really expect to get that amount. Asking for 75 million, may in reality get you 5 or possibly they are just looking to make a quick buck with an out of court settlement.
first, this case isn't breaking any new legal ground. as you point out, the media, in all forms, has to be conscious of these things, because lawsuits arising under defamation and false light have been around before many forms of media even existed.
second, while i think it is arguable whether this soldier has a case, an argument that can't even be debated until we see the footage, the article doesn't point out anything unethical done by Moore. His point was that the US army was leaving the soldiers behind. So in the next frame he shows a soldier who has lost limbs and is forced to take serious pain meds.
The obvious message is that soldiers are getting fucked up in Iraq. Might some people infer that Moore is implying that the US doesn't take care of its wounded vets? Perhaps, but according to the article, there wasn't any further reinforcement of this message. If that's all this soldier is going on, he is sitting on a loser case.
Farenheit 9-11 was an extremely important movie. Moore threw out some conspiracy theories, but he never adopted them, that was left up to the view to decide. To me, anytime someone hates on Moore for 9-11, they come off as anti-1st Amendment. Give the viewer the benefit of the doubt. This wasn't a propaganda film. Check Fox News for that.
oh man come on. his "documentary"s are so heavy-handed it's laughable.
this seems like you might be pretty biased on Moore. 9/11 was indeed a propaganda film, It's not like this wasn't known. Moore even timed its release in the theaters and on DVD in hopes of throwing some of the votes away from Bush.
I think its pretty extreme to say that hating on Michael Moore is anti-first amendment. Sounds like you "hate us for our freedom"
I liked the film, I saw it in the theaters and own it on DVD but that doesn't I don't recognize it as a well made piece of propaganda. Complete with the director putting words in Bush's mouth and taking the words of soldiers out of context.
Yeah, and I'm sure ad hominem attacks are so effective at winning people over to your side.
when Moore's film came out, the media was (and still is) soo overwhelmingly biased in favor of the right, that his film came off less like propaganda and more like a run down of all the other points of view out there which the press never covered. there were so many conspiracy theories in his film, that adopting them all would be contradictory. i don't agree with every theory presented in 9-11, and i doubt that Moore does either. the film succeeded in that it got those messages out and raised some eyebrows. also, there are plenty of issues that Moore got 100% right. the movie starts out with a segment on how the Supreme Court disregarded the constitution and supreme court precedent and stole the election from Gore. that argument is supported by just about every law school professor in the country.