Left Out
As Drudge has been featuring (yeah, that's right, we link to Drudge--he needs the hits), a war veteran is suing Michael Moore over his portrayal in Fahrenheit 9/11. Sergeant Peter Damon is claiming "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation":
Moore's film may be hateful and dishonest, but I think he'll win.In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."
"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."
Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."
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.
What Damon opposes is essentially Moore's MO. He regularly cuts things together and leaves out information to give the viewer a particular impression. The question is should he have to pay.
I'm not saying Moore can get away with anything. He can't show a soldier leaving a meeting and say he's leaving a brothel. But if you don't say something and figure the audience will infer something else, I think that is not enough for a lawsuit. Look at the example above. Moore can claim "Damon was injured and this is what he said, and this is what Jim McDermott said, too (and I think McDermott is right)--neither I nor McDermott claim that he's referring in any way to Damon in particular."
In other words, I think Moore can get away with the sin of omission. Every documentary has to leave out a lot more than it puts in. Being required to put everything in so that everyone shown in the film is happy is too high a standard to meet.
Columbus Guy says: That's not quite right. You can clearly be held responsible for inferences. It seems likely to me, though, that as you've described it there really is no inference to be had (a guy on a gurney talking about pain? You may as well assume all wounded and their families are Cindy Sheehans, and I'll bet the vast majority are anti-Sheehans), and perhaps more importantly, the inference, if there, has no culpability. I don't know, it's only that I'm doubtful.
And besides, I thought the whole point of brothels was to have meetings?
LAGuy replies: Now who's inferring things? I didn't say you can't be held responsible for something implied. I said Michael Moore will win this case.
Nevertheless, I think the implication Damon sees is there.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:49 AM
4 Comments:
I don't know who's inferring things, but I do know who's shifting his ground. You said, "I think Moore can get away with the sin of omission. . . . Being required to put everything in so that everyone shown in the film is happy is too high a standard to meet." There isn' a sin of omission; there's a sin of implication, which Moore may or may not be guilty of in this context, but in any case must be substantively culpable. If Moore wins, as we both seem to suspect, you say it's because the soldier has no right to protection from an inference, and I say it's because the inference itself-his support or opposition to Bush or the war-isn't protected.
I was talking about a specific instance, not a general rule. Even the example you give has me discussing Moore in particular. That's why I said "I think he'll win," not "as a matter of law he will win."
There is a general rule and it allows for a lot of leeway, as it must, or almost any inference one makes, even a "reaonable person," would be actionable.
If I remember my Bar exam class (they would never actually teach anything practical at U of C Law School), isn't there a "false lights" libel doctrine? As I remember the example is there is a picture of an individual on page 1 of a newspaper and a giant headline beneath reading something like "Murderer Loose" when in fact the two were unrelated. I recall the pictured individual had a case for the inference even though no inference was intended (apparently just a really bad page one editor).
However even if that is the standard, I think Moore wins this case as the inference claimed by the wounded soldier does not really seem that strong. I think he is taking the opportunity to make sure his real views are heard (and today they were by several million people probably more than saw the movie)
It's always nice to hear from Hyde Park (no place to hide, no place to park).
The false light doctrine is a way of getting around the stricter rules of defamation. Defamation can be more direct, while false light can just be how the information (even if true) is presented to give a false--and highly offensive--impression (though it must be done intentionally or with reckless disregard). Defamation is part of libel law, but I believe false light is an invasion of privacy tort.
If you check out Reason's Hit & Run today, you'll see that there's some evidence this soldier was against the war. If the "false" impression is true, that would be a successful defense.
Post a Comment
<< Home