June 1, 2006
DARNED JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film (Denise Lavoie, AP, 6/1/06)
A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."Well, G-d bless Sgt. Damon and G-d knows if there were any justice in the world, Michael Moore would be forced to disgorge his ill-gotten gains to American veterans, but this sounds like the sort of litigation we would ordinarily scorn. We have to keep reminding ourselves that we can't do good with the Devil's instruments. Posted by David Cohen at June 1, 2006 12:46 PMSgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week....
Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.
In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."
He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.
"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as 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 says in his lawsuit.
What's the likelihood of an out-of-court settlement?
Posted by: Jay at June 1, 2006 1:00 PMDevil's instruments? Not in this case.
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 1, 2006 1:31 PMDavid: War? or Lawsuits?
Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 2:05 PMWhat about the "things must get worse before they get better" theory? Force the contradiction and all that…
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 1, 2006 2:32 PMWell, I'm not a lawyer, and $85 million may be excessive, but aren't victims of slander entitled to compensation?
What could be more slanderous than to be represented as an ally of Michael Moore?
Posted by: pj at June 1, 2006 2:49 PMMy Torts is rusty, but isn't this a "false light" claim?
Posted by: Pepys at June 1, 2006 3:07 PMIs a rusty crowbar a devil's instrument?
Posted by: Shelton at June 1, 2006 3:39 PMTo the contrary, it's of vital importance to refurbish such law and end the blight of unlimited free speech in all areas but actual politics which is the only place any free speech is required.
Posted by: oj at June 1, 2006 3:42 PMThis isn't really a free speech claim, although I'm sure that Moore will scream all the way to the bank about this attempt to censor his brave truth-telling. It is, as Pepys says, a false-light claim and, from the facts in the article, probably a pretty weak claim. The tort of false-light was probably one of the first judge-made laws that started us down the slippery slope to privacy and abortion.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 1, 2006 4:04 PMLibel, slander, defamation, etc. all need to be restored. Speech is so important it should have consequences.
Posted by: oj at June 1, 2006 4:26 PMDontcha just love it when the little guy speaks truth to power.
Posted by: jeff at June 1, 2006 4:49 PMI have no problem with bringing back defamation law full bore, but the genious of the American system is to make political speech so unimportant as to be worthless.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 1, 2006 5:15 PMWhy not go whole hog and bring back duelling?
Libel, slander et al were judicial attempts to stop the upper classes from killing each other on the weekends.
Posted by: Pepys at June 1, 2006 6:46 PMPeyps, Good one. Weekends could be more interesting if they repealled those laws.
David, I think perhaps the slippery slope started with the Brown vs. Board of Education case, whatever the good intentions.
Posted by: jdkelly at June 1, 2006 7:51 PMPepys,
And the downside of the upper classes dueling each other to death was.......?
Posted by: Kirk Parker at June 1, 2006 8:30 PMKirk, to quote Jack Benny, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking."
Posted by: erp at June 2, 2006 8:25 AM