Michael Moore sued by Iraq Veteran

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:23 am**

I was going to post this. I saw the guy in Farenheit and Farenhype, heard him on Hannity this afternoon, and watched him on TV tonight.
It's just sick what Moore did to this man, and how he won't even honor him with an apology, which is all the man asked for in the beginning.
But alas, that is what Mr. Moore does--he sells propoganda, and he's damn good at it.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

New WN Rules ask that from now on users now longer copy and paste articles off of news sites like this.

webtaz99 · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:47 am Re: Michael Moore sued by Iraq Veteran**

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:42 pm**

Yeah. A kid told me today basically told me that it was the guy's fault, and that he has no case. But this guy is VERY liberal, and a VERY big Bush hater. Ridiculous, isn't it?
The case is most definitely obvious in the good officer's favor.
Besides, he gets hurt fighting for his country, and Moore has the nerve to do this? Sick.

Lord Borg · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:46 pm**

Moore hates this country I think, but like always, his freedome and rights are to valuble to pack up and leave

LightningBoy · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:23 pm**

Starbuck · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:15 pm**

wow.... sueing someone for exercising freedom of speech...... only in america.....

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:17 pm**

Suing someone for excersizing their freedom of speech?! Have you not read the article? Do you not know the story?
Moore used him--WITHOUT his permission--in a slanderous attack on the president. He slandered the man, making him appear as though he was opposed to the war. His belief, however, is QUITE the contrary.
Getting your video placed in there without your permission and taken entirely out of context isn't "excersizing one's freedom of speech." That is slander and libel, plain and simple.
For two years he's been offerring Moore the chance to apologize, and now that he hasn't done it, he's taking it a step further, and rightfully so.

Starbuck · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:21 pm**

do you even know what slander and libel are?

first of all if that man gave an interview..... it became property of the world.... I did read the article, in fact, and I read it before it was posted here. Lets also take into account that this is comming from Fox..... and don't even get me STARTED on them....

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:28 pm**

Don't get you started on them? Why? What's wrong with the network? Too fair and balanced for you?
And the guy himself, and his lawyer, was on the program. Just because he gave the interview doesn't mean that it's alright for Moore to intentionally morph his position into being anti-war, knowing that that wasn't the case; and then he didn't respond to it? Not right, especially when the man lost his arms in the war, serving his country.
And yes, I do know what slander and libel is, and this could qualify under that, as well as other illegal misuses of "freedom of speech."
This man has every reason to sue Moore. I would've done it two years ago, a month after initially requesting an apology.

Kyle Reese · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:57 pm**

According to dictionary.com, slander is:

1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

In the movie, Rep. McDermott says "They're leaving all kinds of veterans behind", and then Sgt. Damon is used as an example. Damon himself says that he isn't being "left behind", so this statement is false.

Libel is:

1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Though the interview really did happen, it was inappropriately used (as noted above) to make Damon appear anti-war, which damages his reputation.

It seems to qualify for both slander and libel, does it not? Plus, Moore should have gotten Damon's permission before using it. Not that he would've gotten it.

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:59 pm**

Exactly. Thank you, Kyle. You are entirely correct. It is slander and libel, and that's wrong.
I remember him in Faranheit 9/11, and I must say that it was a gross display. How this man could be violated, in that sense, is just beyond me.

Theresa · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:03 pm**

Yeah, it's very clear this man has a very strong case. When someone gives an interview, you cannot edit it so that it makes it say something else. Example: "I hate when people are mean to cats", removing a few words, you can totally change it; "I hate cats". One says one thing, one an entirely different thing. (Lame example, I know, but the cats are pestering me,

) It doesn't matter if it's public record. It must be used in context, and the meaning not changed.

Republican_Man · **Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:08 pm**

lol. Seriously, though, that's true. If you're quoting someone and they say "I hate the policies of Democrats," and you go and put "I hate...Democrats." It's just like that, as you said with cats.

Starbuck · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:14 am**

Fox is the most republican news source out there..... such a one sided article.... perhaps I should put mine up there from a more liberal source and compare the two?

how did this injur the mans reputation? he's a veteran, not a politician or a business owner..... I'm on my third law class now...... I think I know just a little bit more about the CIRCUMSTANCES of slander and libel than dictionary.com does.....

well..... I'd like to see the origional interview and the one in F9/11..... I don't think he edited certain words out.... I think he edited it so it was only a portion of the interview.....

and even if he sues Michael Moore.... I"m pretty sure the man has one kick ass attourney who will get him off....

Theresa · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:59 am**

"your third law class" makes you more knowledgeable than a book that has been in existence for many decades? I hardly think so,

You don't have to be a politician or a business owner to be a victim of slander... Perhaps you ought to ask your teacher about that. Anyone can sue anyone else for slander and defamation of character. Whether or not you have evidence to support the claim is the issue. This man obviously does, or it wouldn't have gone this far. Moore is counting on his celebrity and money to protect him. Hopefully it won't.

Lord Borg · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:29 pm**

Yeah, this is what bothers me about this guy. I watched the Columbine thingy he made, and depiste what that docs point was? It clearly had attacks on bush, even has stuff on 9/11 in it, even though it was about Gun Control

I really detest this man.

Republican_Man · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:52 pm**

I do too. I've seen, as I said, Farenheit 9/11, and I wouldn't see it again. It's a movie of deception and lies and attacks and propoganda and slander. Just look at this man's plite.
Yes, Starbuck, he did take a portion of the interview. But what he did was still slander. I'll even talk to my AP Human Geo teacher on Monday about this, if you really want. He was an attorney for 25 years, and still is, though he's not principally that any longer. I'm sure he'd know exactly what we're talking about here.
The evidence against him is so blatantly obvious. He has the NBC interview and he has the film. The film makes him look bad, misleading people into thinking he's opposed to the war. He did it without his permission too.
How you cannot see how wrong this is just blows my mind. Honestly, can you not think past the liberal-conservative debate for a moment and look at the facts of this case? If you're in your third law class, know doubt a high school one, too, correct?, does that make you able to say, "Yeah, he did all this stuff, but it's not slander, because he's not a politician or businessman" and whatever else you say?
No, it doesn't. If you're doing an interview and somebody uses a portion of that interview for their own propoganda, it doesn't matter if you're a politician or a businessman or not. All that matters is that you've been used wrongfully in an effort to convince the people watching the film that veterans are being left behind, when that is FAR from the contrary of his situation.
He had a house built for him for his special needs. He's getting all the money he needs to survive. He's not being left behind, and yet Mr. Moore knowingly uses him to make it seem as though he is being left behind, and after this man nearly gave his life for that jerk to make that idiotic film of propoganda? Yeah, that's really okay

WeAz · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:17 pm**

Republican_Man · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:24 pm**

Such as...? There's hardly a single thing in that that isn't a deceit, thereby making his "debate material" bogus and not worth using.
Just look at Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 for starters

Lord Borg · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:26 pm**

Republican_Man · **Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:30 pm**

Little late. I fixed that already, right after I made the post