This Is Too Good....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+30 June 2004 - 14:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 30 June 2004 - 14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 19:04
@JamesBond:&nbsp; I find an article pointing out that this movie is nothing but contradiction and made up facts and that makes me an extremist? You told me to wake up and smell the roses but I think you need to practice what you preach. It’s you yourself who blindly follows Moore and believes whatever he says to be fact not me.

I believe that the USA is a Court Culture...

ie: If there are libels then there will be court action.

If, therefore MM isnt sued by those he calls names....then by definition they mustnt be able to defend themselves against the Accusations in Court.

That is the risk MM takes in making films of this type, and the risk that politians face by taking office.



And there are still people in the USA that believe Clinton/Gore are Democrats, just because they ran on that platform [/b][/quote]
Not true, Rat.

One can say, or make allusions to, just about anything when speaking of a public figure, without fear of legal sanction.

Case law applies; part of the massive catalog of "Free Speech" caveats.

Were it possible to sell admittance to this forum, we would be in the same boat, yes?

Much of what we "publish" here is not dissimilar to Moore&#39;s effort.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 21:10
Clocker me not seeing the movie does not change the fact that it’s full of contradictions and inaccuracies. My opinion is that its garbage backed up the evidence provided by the article, which is posted in the beginning of this thread.

As I said...

Have any of these "Libelled" persons taken court action?

Inaction speaks louder than words sometimes....




J2k4,

We must have posted at same time.

There is a difference between infering impropriety and saying it outright.

This is the difference between Politics and Libel.

To accuse "The Government" is also one thing, however to accuse individuals is quite another....

If a "Person"; no matter who they are, is accused of something outright that is false and can prove it was false, then that is Libel.

Even in the USA....the difference is that the "Public Figure" has to go to further lengths...he has to prove it was done with Malice.

This, would not need much evidence in the case of MM.

That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.

Source

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by clocker+30 June 2004 - 20:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 30 June 2004 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BBH, have you even seen this film? [/b]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@30 June 2004 - 22:10
Clocker me not seeing the movie does not change the fact that it’s full of contradictions and inaccuracies. My opinion is that its garbage backed up the evidence provided by the article, which is posted in the beginning of this thread.

Maybe it&#39;s me, but does this following satirical quote in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City come to mind to anyone else (who&#39;s played it )?

<!--QuoteBegin-VCPR Radio@ GTA:VC
Maurice: ...And Mr. Hickory, were you born in Florida?

John: Tuhah&#33;&nbsp; What a stupid question&#33;&nbsp; Of all the cheek&#33;&nbsp;

Maurice: Were you?

John: Of course not&#33;&nbsp; No one&#39;s been born in Florida since 1877&#33; BUT...&#33;&nbsp;
I&#39;ve been here five years which is a very long time.[/quote]

[j2k4]

You prove my point:

To sue Mr. Moore for slander/libel would require one take on he and his sponsors/financiers, who, in any case, would excuse any attempt to attach malice by stating "...it&#39;s just a movie...", made with the same type of creative license as Oliver Stone used when he made JFK and Nixon.

Note that Moore himself is very slyly backing away from any effort to characterize his movie as a documentary, so as to avoid legal entanglement, and also to avoid laws which limit the timeframe for showing blatantly political media in an election season.

It&#39;s a very minor crapshoot, but a crapshoot nonetheless; if Bush sued Moore, he would be accused of abusing the office of President in pursuit of a man who, the media and Mr. Moore himself would have you believe, epitomizes "Joe Six-Pack".

Not a winner.

No matter: even if Bush did sue, and win, what&#39;s in it for him?

The damage is done, and Moore hides (financially) behind the legal skirts of his sponsors.

Principle is often (more often then you&#39;d think) not enough to carry the day.

[Rat Faced]

On the contrary..

Its been promoted as a Documovie...

The Principle that GWBush is being slandered/Libelled is everything in an election season... If he dont sue, hes guilty.

The Presidency may be whats in it for him, and prove he isnt Guilty of just "gung Ho" lets get our boys killed.


If the movie had been promoted as a Comedy.. ie Satire, then he couldnt.

MM delibratley promoted it before release as a Documentary... So the ball is in the court of those "Libelled" in the film.



Edit:

Just to make plain... I havet seen it, and it sounds a crap movie anyway

But im gonna make a point of watching it now

[Mathea]

well this prolly belongs in movie world but i thought i would add:


im anti bush. very much so. I saw this film and absolutely hated it. it doesnt change my stance but i think he definitely should not win any awards or anythign for it.... there was alot he could have done with this movie, but instead i fould it to be garbage....... ok RF move this cuz i dont think it belongs here but I had to get that out

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 June 2004 - 21:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 30 June 2004 - 21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@30 June 2004 - 02:08
You think Christopher Hitchens is a "flaming lib"?
I get Vanity Fair ( it was a gift, so don&#39;t even start) and read Hitchens every month.
Sometimes I agree and others, not, but I would hardly characterize him as liberal.
More a wannabe journalistic icon, a second rate Tom Wolfe, lacking both the talent and sartorial flair of his idol.
But NOT a "flaming lib".

Nice try though.

Excuse me, sir, but compared to me, he&#39;s a flaming lib; occasionally lapsed, perhaps, but there you have it.

[/b][/quote]
Apologies at the outset here - my only excuse is that the flesh is weak&#33;

J2, compared to you Attila the Hun was a flaming Liberal.






Rather childish I know, but one can resist everything but temptation.


Hank,

By agreeing a critique of something you have not yet seen you are creating a homemade crocodile which will circle to bite you on the rear at some point in a future debate. Rather, it would be wiser to say that on reflection and given MM&#39;s politics, it is a pleasure you can easily bring yourself to miss.

[vidcc]

I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.

Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Biggles+30 June 2004 - 16:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 30 June 2004 - 16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I&#39;m going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn&#39;t agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn&#39;t want to stop it being shown.

Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film. [/b][/quote]
Oh i agree totally on the point of calling it garbage purely on the basis of a critics view. The viewpoint of such a revue could hardly be called evidence as it is just a viewpoint, an opinion.

As i stated in my first post i can&#39;t comment because i haven&#39;t seen the movie so all i have is this one revue to take a stance. It is very possible that the author is correct but i can&#39;t pass judgement until i have seen the evidence for myself.

I do however think it&#39;s a fair article because it does try debate the points of the film instead of just attack the makers credentials. Rebuttal is part of debate, personality assasination doesn&#39;t address the issues.