Fahrenheit 9/11 was the worst piece of propaganda excrement I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch. I booed throughout and was reprimanded by my wife more than once for yelling “bull shit” in the theater.
The movie was filled with more lies, half-truths, and out-of-context spin than a “documentary” has the right to, including this:
A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America’s invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.
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 yesterday. “They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition.”
I hope Sgt Damon gets paid. Big.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
NewsBusters.org – Exposing… Soccer Dad Gateway Pundit The Uncooperative Blogger Right Voices Common Sense and Wonder Little Miss Attila Talking Hoarsely The Stopped Clock UrbanGrounds Roger L. Simon
I’m not sure what the limits are in the re-use of documentary footage. Presumably, if his words were edited beyond recognition he might have a case. But if he is just unhappy with the juxtaposition of his injuries with the fecklessness of President Bush I would imagine he is out of luck.
In any case it’s not necessary for Sgt. Damon to agree with the point of the movie for his scene to have a strong impact supporting the conclusions of the movie. Our actions and circumstances can be much stronger than our words.
Sgt Damon is speaking Truth to Power.
Sgt Damon is speaking Truth to Power.
Hmm… that’s a phrase not typically directed towards someone who makes movies.
Hmm… that’s a phrase not typically directed towards someone who makes movies.
Are you kidding? I hear that phrase mostly used by and about people “who make movies” — people like Michael Moore, Babs, Clooney, Ms and Mr. Sarandon, and the rest of the Limo-Liberal Hollywood crowd…who thinks it’s more patriotic to “speak truth to power” and to dissent than it is to actually serve in the military (which they despise).
Preston, I find it interesting that you are not defending Sgt. Damon’s privacy rights. He didn’t give permission to Moore to use the clip in his movie, not to mention to take it out of context. Also, he didn’t give permission to NBC to sell the clip to Moore. Movie stars sue tabloids all the time for this kind of thing and win. Is it ok for anyone to take an interview/picture of you or say your kids without your permission, twist it, and then use it for their own profit?
Dianne – I don’t have an opinion about Sgt. Damon – I don’t remember his segment in the movie, so I don’t know whether it was fairly used or not.
But would you care to explain your claim that “movie stars sue tabloids all the time for this kind of thing and win”? I don’t think you are right about that – at least not under American law.
Dianne-
I would agree that if Sgt. Damon’s image was put on a Wheaties box without his permission he would have grounds to sue. But when the speech is political (like Mr. Moore’s) there is a countervailing principle of free speech that must be weighed against privacy rights.
The guy voluntarily submitted to an interview and presumably Michael Moore cleared the rights to use the footage so I’m not sure that Sgt. Damon has legal grounds to sue. (Though not being a lawyer I’m not sure that he would have to clear the rights…)
Just to put the shoe on the other foot- lets say that a liberal pro-choice woman gave an newspaper interview about an abortion she had had yet quotes from the interview was used in a book designed to rally opposition to abortion. She would surely be upset about her inclusion in the book but how could she protest?
Why should it be different for a conservative? Or different for a documentary movie?
I’m not a lawyer; however, the right of privacy appears applicable to me. See following article, 3rd item, pt. 2. Note I didn’t have time to read the whole article or do further research.
http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm
Preston, I agree there should be no distinction between liberals and conservatives as in the example you cited about the abortion issue.