It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq War Vet sues Michael Moore over Fahrenheit 9/11

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
An Iraq war veteran from Middleborough, Massachusetts, who lost both arms when a helicopter exploded in front of him, is suing docudrama producer Michael Moore for the sum of $85 million. Sgt. Peter Damon says that Moore misrepresented him in the controversial movie "Fahrenheit 9/11", a strong anti-Bush film.
 



www.foxnews.com
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming he recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said Tuesday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."






Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Many moviemakers use questionable tactics to push an agenda, especially when it comes to documentaries. This is one of the first times that a character has sued over misrepresentation, however.

Moore's anti-Bush movie about the Iraq war has drawn much praise and criticism from supporters and critics. The fact that he misrepresented Sgt. Damon in the movie is one thing. But do producers, or for that matter, journalists in general, have an obligation to have material reviewed and accepted by the participants before the material is released?




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I doubt this guy has much recourse. The story says he never agreed to be in Fahrenheit 9/11, but he must have agreed to something. He had to sign some sort of release, for MM to be able to use it at all. MM is no dummy. He’s done this before.

I certainly don’t approve of some of MM’s tactics, but if people give an interview, and don’t have a lawyer check over the contract, it’s like putting your name on the Internet. You just let a piece of you out there for all to see and use. Sad but true.

I’m sorry the guy was misrepresented, but he needs to contact more news outlets and get his story out there. Suing for $85 Million doesn’t exactly make one’s motives appear altruistic.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This "guy" is a true war hero and I hope he gets about 150 lbs of MM arse. If he signed anything MM would have plastered it all over the media by now.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

from Benevolent Heretic
I doubt this guy has much recourse. The story says he never agreed to be in Fahrenheit 9/11, but he must have agreed to something. He had to sign some sort of release, for MM to be able to use it at all. MM is no dummy. He’s done this before.

Get ready for the sick joke of the day...

How could he sign anything? He lost both his arms.



Suing for $85 Million doesn’t exactly make one’s motives appear altruistic.

Maybe the motive was punitive. MM may have done this before, but don't discount the notion that he may have figured he was dealing with the uninitiated, and gambled that he could get away with it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
When producing a movie like ferenheit 9/11 one needs to follow all legal steps with due diligance. Morre has made movies before that focus on controvercial subjects, and to give the opposition ammunition would be a rookie mistake. I doubt he did this without the vet's consent. Even proving implied conset could set this in Moore's favor.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Sorry, but he gave an interview and I'm sure all the copyright laws were followed.

The "misrepresentation part" will be impossble to prove. MM will say that nowehere in the movie this soldier is declared to be anti-war. He just gives his story about these painkillers. And if it's a painful story, so be it. War sucks. War in Iraq sucks rabbit @rse.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

from BH

I doubt this guy has much recourse. The story says he never agreed to be in Fahrenheit 9/11, but he must have agreed to something.

Just remember the context of the "interview", BH. The kid was in Walter Reed, having lost both his arms, and testing a new painkiller. He probably has seen a dozen politicos, twenty TV cameras, and a hundred support groups walking up and down the rows of beds, patting shoulders ad getting photo-ops for their own reasons.

In that scenario, do you think he freely gave his consent to be in the movie?

And what about his right to review it before it was released?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
LIke I said, I'm pretty sure that the formalities were followed. He might have given a verbal consent (with a fwe witnesses around) to be on camera.

I doubt that many people filmed in documentaries of all sorts, are all given a chance to review the product and give their consent to its release. I feel sympathetic for this guy but his suit is probably without merit.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I'm not saying he gave consent to be in a movie. I'm saying that whatever he 'signed' for the NBC interview probably gave all the rights to NBC and didn't constrict them from giving it or selling it to a third party, in this case, Moore. NBC probably freely sold it to Moore after they ran their piece to use as he saw fit.

As I said, I don't approve of the tactics, I feel sorry for the guy, but there's probably no legal recourse.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
morally, yea its wrong and moore is an ass for it. Legally, this is just how the system works. We may not like it but it was NBC's choice to do with it as they may and NBC I can garentee followed the proper road when leasing it to moore to do whatever he wanted with it. I feel bad for the Soldier, but he got screwed (not to mention he lost his arms).



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Wouldn't it make more sense for the soldier to sue the US for a war started under false pretenses? They've got more money anyway, and they are at fault for this man losing his arms. Besides, the huge sum is most likely there so this soldier can support his family and himself with no arms. If he needs to come up with money because he's not being cared for properly, then who's fault is that?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
No, because the US did not solicit his enrollment under false pretenses. Michael Moore, on the other hand, had a pre-conceived agenda.

As far as looking for money to support his family, so what? Michael Moore should be able to keep all the money from something he never participated in, yet benefits from? What's "fair" about that?

[edit on 1-6-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
no michael moore will keep all the money he made because...he made it and it was his creation. people went to see it, the guy got screwed and misrepresented, he should have had a lawyer and proper documents before opening his mouth. Unfortunately thats the society we live in, he has to deal with that. Michael Moore rightfully earned that money from the movie, like it or not.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Really? And do you walk around with a lawyer in your back pocket, to scrutinize every word you say every day?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

jsobecky
As far as looking for money to support his family, so what? Michael Moore should be able to keep all the money from something he never participated in, yet benefits from?


Please select the answer that best fits the blank

__________ should be able to keep all the money from something he never participated in, yet benefits from?


a. G. W. Bush

b. Dick Cheney

c. Raffi

d. Michael Moore


The correct answer is Raffi. He started a war under false pretenses, makes billions through the occupation of Iraq, and participated in organizing 9/11 'terrorist' attack.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Who's Raffi?

This line added to satisfy rules.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I want to point something out. When it comes to things like Loose Change and other docs, people start chiming in about the motive of the author. They say things like, how can we trust so and so because they are making a profit on their book/docu etc.

Well, this guy is sueing for 85 mill? Why aren't people suggesting the same of this person? Because he's a war vet? I know alot of war vets and let me tell you, they aren't saints just because they went to war.

Yes, this guy is a hero and should be considered as such, but 85 mill? I wish I could be misquoted and recieve 85 mill (that is if he wins).



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
He knew he was being videotaped. When you are videotaped saying stuff, you darn well better mean what you say and say what ya mean.
He is not mentally challenged. He knew fully well he was being documented in a video. Never mind the purpose or it- he wants some attention and quick dough.

I do feel very sorry for the loss of his arms, though. That doesnt have anything to do with MM.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Who's Raffi?

This line added to satisfy rules.


He's a childrens singer, with such great hits as down by the bay, and banana-phone. I thought it would be funny to accuse him of commiting these extreme acts because it is obvious that it was the bush administration, not Raffi and Moore.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

He is not mentally challenged.



I don't know about that. He was on painkillers, after all.


Was he of sound mind when he signed his release, or too high to know the difference. The "reality" show COPS makes a living by getting consent from people too high to know what they are getting into . . .

.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join