NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like someone in the private sector (http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1098107948317350.xml&storylist=politics) is tired of being caught up in partisan politics.
Veteran files libel suit against director of anti-Kerry film
10/18/2004, 4:29 p.m. ET
By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Vietnam veteran filed a libel lawsuit Monday claiming he was falsely portrayed as a fraud and a liar in a film criticizing Sen. John Kerry's anti-war activities.

Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said in the suit that "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" combines footage of him appearing at a 1971 war protest with a voice-over that claims that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds" who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform."

The suit said viewers would be left with the perception that Campbell had lied about his military service and encouraged others to make up stories about war atrocities.

Campbell attached copies of his military records to the suit, showing that he received the Purple Heart medal and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service as an artillery forward observer in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.

The suit names the film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, and his company, Red White and Blue Productions, as defendants.

"I'd be darned if I'm going to sit back and let someone libel me like this," said Campbell. "It paints me as having been a fabricator, a fraud and a liar."

Campbell's lawyer also threatened legal action against the Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of 62 television stations that has announced that it intends to pre-empt regular programing to broadcast "Stolen Honor" before the election. The 42-minute film is critical of Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, and his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam three decades ago.
I'm glad this is happening. It's about time political operatives realized that they can't just slime everyone and come away unscathed. They have to be held responsible.

Dude's a college professor. Everyone already thinks he's a fraud and a liar, so how's this going to damage his reputation then?

Pshaw, out on summary judgment that one.

this should teach these fuckers to shut the fuck up, they sit around claiming kerry is defaming otehr vietnam vets by his actions when the vietnam vets against kerry have repeatedly made all other vietnam veterans look like fools and harass and attack them indirectly

hey great your bitter cause you didnt get a parade, grow up

Dude's a college professor. Everyone already thinks he's a fraud and a liar, so how's this going to damage his reputation then?

Pshaw, out on summary judgment that one.
How are you able to breathe without having someone to remind you to do it? :rolleyes:

If he didn't want to be seen as a liar and a fabricator then he shouldn't have lied in the first place.

If he didn't want to be seen as a liar and a fabricator then he shouldn't have lied in the first place.
Where exactly do you get the idea that the guy who has filed this suit is a liar? Out of your ass perhaps? Because that's what it smells like.

How are you able to breathe without having someone to remind you to do it? :rolleyes:

Well that's an able refutation of the salient points.

No-one has to remind to breathe, I have a functioning autonomic nervous system. Am I to take it from your post that you do not?

Now commence petulantly crying for the mods instead of getting a much needed humor transplant.

Well that's an able refutation of the salient points.

No-one has to remind to breathe, I have a functioning autonomic nervous system. Am I to take it from your post that you do not?

Now commence petulantly crying for the mods instead of getting a much needed humor transplant.
There's no fucking salient point in your post. And yes-I was questioning whether or not you indeed had an autonomic nervous system, much less a frontal lobe that would make you capable of rational thought.

Documentaries aren't considered political speech.. end of issue. :rolleyes:

The libel statute says this guy's SOL.

There's no fucking salient point in your post. And yes-I was questioning whether or not you indeed had an autonomic nervous system, much less a frontal lobe that would make you capable of rational thought.

What about the humor transplant?

Where exactly do you get the idea that the guy who has filed this suit is a liar? Out of your ass perhaps? Because that's what it smells like.
Have you been sniffing my ass this whole time?

Documentaries aren't considered political speech.. end of issue. :rolleyes:

The libel statute says this guy's SOL.I'm not saying you're wrong on the libel statute, but can you back it up?

Have you been sniffing my ass this whole time?
Nope, but I've known enough anal-linguists in my day to smell one even over the internet.

Have you been sniffing my ass this whole time?Must have been!

Wow, Incertonia, you seem to have attracted all the high-intelligence posters tonight. One presents some stupid crack, another presents a stupid assumption, and a third pats the second on the back!

Now, if only they could put some effort into actual debate...hmm...I guess they learned from AM radio how "debate" works. Good luck getting some real discussion here. I, for one, am glad to see someone taking these propagandists to task.

I'm not saying you're wrong on the libel statute, but can you back it up?

First, the odds of any judge issuing an injunction on any action in the next 15 days are minimal at best, and would've been more likely if the guy had filed for fraudulent misrepresentation or invasion of privacy.. but the general rule is the judge needs a solid prima facie case to issue an injunction..

As to the statute itself, any defamation action must prove that the defendant caused the plaintiff to be lowered in esteem in the eyes of a substantial and respectable group of people, or held up to ridicule, hatred or contempt.

1. is difficult due to the passage of time and likelihood of recognition - the nature of a documentary, if the film is accepted as one, would dictate fair disclosure of newsworthy information

2. would have to assume the piece was intended to do any one of those three things, which is unlikely from what we know, although depending on the content, is the most likely to favor the professor.

Edit: I'm not saying fraud or IOP would be more effective, only that precedent would favor an injunction in either case.

Also - the filmmakers probably have a solid public-interest defense, given the upcoming election.

this should teach these fuckers to shut the fuck up, they sit around claiming kerry is defaming otehr vietnam vets by his actions when the vietnam vets against kerry have repeatedly made all other vietnam veterans look like fools and harass and attack them indirectly

hey great your bitter cause you didnt get a parade, grow up

actually there is much more then simp0ly not getting a parade.. beside death threats to family members, being attacked when they came home. Having John French Kerry call them monsters and war criminals to the public. I'm sure they have nothing to be bitter about. To be honest if you were escorted through an airport behind cops with hippie protesters throughing excrimate and rotten food at you I think it entitles you to a bit of bitterness. You shodl really read up on not just the war but what happened to the soldiers who came home from it.

Wow, Incertonia, you have attracted all the high-intelligence posters tonight. Now, if only I could put some effort into actual debate maybe I could compete with the bestIt's ok.

Documentaries aren't considered political speech.. end of issue. :rolleyes:

The libel statute says this guy's SOL.
Why would libel be constricted to political speech? He seems to be arguing that the documentary portrays him as someone who was lying, thus defaming his character. Your defense of this seems like a non-sequitar. I have to go with Incertonia on this, you'll have to be able to site something or be a little clearer.

That and almost universally when I see something like "end of issue," "nuff said," or "end of discussion" there is definetely something left unsaid. Maybe people should stop spiking the ball before the point is actually scored.

Why would libel be constricted to political speech? He seems to be arguing that the documentary portrays him as someone who was lying, thus defaming his character. Your defense of this seems like a non-sequitar. I have to go with Incertonia on this, you'll have to be able to site something or be a little clearer.

That and almost universally when I see something like "end of issue," "nuff said," or "end of discussion" there is definetely something left unsaid. Maybe people should stop spiking the ball before the point is actually scored.

hate to be a bother but dont foget volleyball ... your suppose to spike the ball so you can score.

Why would libel be constricted to political speech? He seems to be arguing that the documentary portrays him as someone who was lying, thus defaming his character. Your defense of this seems like a non-sequitar. I have to go with Incertonia on this, you'll have to be able to site something or be a little clearer.

That and almost universally when I see something like "end of issue," "nuff said," or "end of discussion" there is definetely something left unsaid. Maybe people should stop spiking the ball before the point is actually scored.

I didn't mean to say that libel only applies to political speech, or doesn't apply to political speech.. by that, all I was addressing the overall effort to prevent the film from airing, which will fail.

It's ok.

Grow up, troll. Incertonia's been the only poster to present an argument here, and I stated my agreement with him. I felt it only right, since all he's gotten for bringing this to our attention is the juvenile and ignorant comments of people like you. I'd left the forum for months, and when I come back, I find that the forum has gotten dumber. That, or one f-ckwit has made himself a bunch of puppets.

Grow up, troll. Incertonia's been the only poster to present an argument here, and I stated my agreement with him. I felt it only right, since all he's gotten for bringing this to our attention is the juvenile and ignorant comments of people like you. I'd left the forum for months, and when I come back, I find that the forum has gotten dumber. That, or one f-ckwit has made himself a bunch of puppets.
It's ok!
When you lie awake at night wondering if the reaper is about, if kerry is in the house, you will feel the claws of death upon your throat!

Wow, Incertonia, you seem to have attracted all the high-intelligence posters tonight. One presents some stupid crack, another presents a stupid assumption, and a third pats the second on the back!

Now, if only they could put some effort into actual debate...hmm...I guess they learned from AM radio how "debate" works. Good luck getting some real discussion here. I, for one, am glad to see someone taking these propagandists to task.

A stupid joke for a stupid post.

How can one engage in "actual debate" when people post stupid shit about libel suits. This is no-longer the nineteenth century and they are hardly ever sucessful. You might as well talk about writs of tresspass.

And actually my point still stands, given that this man is obviously a politically inclined college professor what actual damage has been done to his reputation. You have to show that too you know - not just that someone lied about you. You also have to find out whether or not this case falls under one of the many many qualified privileges that exist as a defense to actions sounding in libel. If that's the case, then actual malice against the plaintiff must be shown. That is seemingly absent here.

There actual debate. Did it help? No, because the whole thing is crap to begin with.

A stupid joke for a stupid post.

How can one engage in "actual debate" when people post stupid shit about libel suits. This is no-longer the nineteenth century and they are hardly ever sucessful. You might as well talk about writs of tresspass.

And actually my point still stands, given that this man is obviously a politically inclined college professor what actual damage has been done to his reputation. You have to show that too you know - not just that someone lied about you. You also have to find out whether or not this case falls under one of the many many qualified privileges that exist as a defense to actions sounding in libel. If that's the case, then actual malice against the plaintiff must be shown. That is seemingly absent here.

There actual debate. Did it help? No, because the whole thing is crap to begin with.

Who's joking about AM radio - it's a farce run by entertainers for the non-thinking. If you meant the rest of my post, again, no joke. I sumed up perfectly the useless input he's received.

Now, your argument...heh. First off, you think you should be given credit for smearing college professors with some snide blanket statement? Hah, you make me laugh.

As for the rest of your point, let's see some proof that libel is totally useless in this day and age. How about pointing out why posting this article is stupid, besides because you don't like it? It's quite an interesting development in a hot current issue...whether the lawsuit is acted upon expediently or to the plaintiff's advantage does not make it any less worthy of note and/or consideration. I also love how you think you can now extrapolate that this guy is "obviously a politically inclined" individual, despite there being nothing in the post to prove that!

You're right! Some wise-ass on the Internet believes this suit has no merit! JUdge, toss this claim out, we have all the evidence we need!

Now, try actually substantiating some of your claims if you expect me to honor your presence with further sarcasm.

This sniping is intolerable. Pure and simple, do any of you conservatives have a point here? All of you have jumped all over this Veteran who served and came back disgusted with war. You want to say Kerry defames people, but when asked to come up with the unedited quote of him doing it, you can't.

Kerry never once said all vietnam soldiers committed attrocities. Not once. Show me where he did it. Please post it. No one ever has.

This veteran whom you now accuse simply because he's coming out against something you all are salivating for, is an unknown to you all. You dismiss him now because he's an anti-war veteran and a professor? I couldn't thing of a more noble thing to be. What's more of an ideal than the Warrior Scholar with a conscience? I think at least he deserves to have his case told, without you all braying for his heart before any facts come out.

Please. Just say no to political hackery.

This sniping is intolerable. Pure and simple, do any of you conservatives have a point here? All of you have jumped all over this Veteran who served and came back disgusted with war. You want to say Kerry defames people, but when asked to come up with the unedited quote of him doing it, you can't.

Kerry never once said all vietnam soldiers committed attrocities. Not once. Show me where he did it. Please post it. No one ever has.

This veteran whom you now accuse simply because he's coming out against something you all are salivating for, is an unknown to you all. You dismiss him now because he's an anti-war veteran and a professor? I couldn't thing of a more noble thing to be. What's more of an ideal than the Warrior Scholar with a conscience? I think at least he deserves to have his case told, without you all braying for his heart before any facts come out.

Please. Just say no to political hackery.

None of us can judge the guy without seeing the clip. I tried to outline the case for defamation, but yeah, we need the clip. If it's his testimony, he has no case.. otherwise, he still probably has no case, but there's always a slight chance.

Who's joking about AM radio - it's a farce run by entertainers for the non-thinking. If you meant the rest of my post, again, no joke. I sumed up perfectly the useless input he's received.

Now, your argument...heh. First off, you think you should be given credit for smearing college professors with some snide blanket statement? Hah, you make me laugh.

As for the rest of your point, let's see some proof that libel is totally useless in this day and age. How about pointing out why posting this article is stupid, besides because you don't like it? It's quite an interesting development in a hot current issue...whether the lawsuit is acted upon expediently or to the plaintiff's advantage does not make it any less worthy of note and/or consideration. I also love how you think you can now extrapolate that this guy is "obviously a politically inclined" individual, despite there being nothing in the post to prove that!

You're right! Some wise-ass on the Internet believes this suit has no merit! JUdge, toss this claim out, we have all the evidence we need!

Now, try actually substantiating some of your claims if you expect me to honor your presence with further sarcasm.


I never said it was useless in this day and age, however libel suits are far less likely to suceed ever since the supreme court began to consitutionlize defamation law. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964). Aware of the chilling effect such suit were having on unpopular viewpoint (especially in the south during civil rights) the Court in the Sullivan decision severly limited a plaintiff's opportunity to suceed in a defamation suit where such suits involved public figures and the first ammendment rights of the press.

Although the public figure exception created by the court has been cirumscribed by the progeny of Sullivan, see Getz. v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 1974 (prominent attorney in high profile case held to by private individual and therefore more tradtional standards of libel apply), the catagory is fairly expansive and is best defined by the test in Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications Inc. 627 F.2d. 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The Waldbaum test determines the public/private status of an individual through consideration of the following factors:

1) Is there a legitimate public controversy that has ramifications beyond the parties in the defomation suit.

2) Did the plaintiffs thrust themselves into the forefront of the dispute

3) Was the defamation realted to the plaintiff's participation in the dispute.

Thus, in the context of current events reporting and factual documentaries, and under the rubrick of Waldbaum, many acts of defamantion that are potentially actionable under the pre-Sullivan libel per se standard, are no longer sucessful because of the fairly broad nature of the test above. Almost anyone who is mentioned within the confines of historical documentaries or current events reportage fulfills the requirements of the Waldbaum test.

In this case for example, arguably, said Professor Asshat's case fits in all three catagories and thus he can no longer rely upon the antiquated doctorine of Libel Per Se, hence no banana. This is why so many libel suits are unsucessful.

I hope this explains why I believe this libel thing is a stupid dead duck.

Please. Just say no to political hackery.I whole heartedly agree! And just say no to kerry! He, who will ask the UN if we can defend the homeland! No, it's an option. President Bush Will Defend The Homeland!

I hope this explains why I believe this libel thing is a stupid dead duck.

Exactly.. plus, if we enforced every instance of slander per se, it'd be the end of rap music as we know it! :eek:

1) Is there a legitimate public controversy that has ramifications beyond the parties in the defomation suit.

2) Did the plaintiffs thrust themselves into the forefront of the dispute

3) Was the defamation realted to the plaintiff's participation in the dispute.

1) This is, of course, arguable, and is for the court to decide.

2) I think this is asking if the plaintiff did something to deliberately be libeled against. In this case, I can't see how he did.

3) I read this to ask, and perhaps I'm wrong, whether the plaintiff had anything to do with bringing claims against him about. I'd argue here, no, because he gave a speech, and later had someone portray him as a liar/fraud, without any evidence or relation to what was said in the speech. I don't think that just because he gave the speech opens him up to be lied about.

Perhaps I am misinterpretting these legal criteria (as some terms are pretty vague, as legal terms often are), but I'd say that only one of these is really a question in this case, that being the question of the damage to his reputation.

1) This is, of course, arguable, and is for the court to decide.

2) I think this is asking if the plaintiff did something to deliberately be libeled against. In this case, I can't see how he did.

3) I read this to ask, and perhaps I'm wrong, whether the plaintiff had anything to do with bringing claims against him about. I'd argue here, no, because he gave a speech, and later had someone portray him as a liar/fraud, without any evidence or relation to what was said in the speech. I don't think that just because he gave the speech opens him up to be lied about.

Perhaps I am misinterpretting these legal criteria (as some terms are pretty vague, as legal terms often are), but I'd say that only one of these is really a question in this case, that being the question of the damage to his reputation.


Well 1) is whether or not the anti-war movement was and still is a bona-fide topic for public debate, and whether or not that public discourse has ramifications beyond just the interests of the goodly prof. and sinclair. Given that it is seemingly inexticably interwoven with the outcome of the current Presidential campaign then I think almost everyonr would agree that it does.

2) By dispute, it is asking if the plaintiffs willingly involved themselves in the underlying public debate in a notorious fashion. Inasmuch as the Prof was an active anti-war protestor to the point that he is on film with JFK, then I thnk there is no question that this criteria is fulfilled.

3) Obviously the defamation arises out of the prof's involvment in the antiwar movement. It does actually mean what you think, just the legal consequence is counter-intuitive. If you give a speech, you become a public figure for the purpose of any reporting in respect of the anti-war movement. Thus people can mislabel, or tell lies about you and the circumstances surronding the speech, so long as they don't do it with actual malice or journalistic negligence. It would be right to assume that they couldn't dig up a file photo of him from two years ago long after he quit the anit-war thing and post it with the caption, this man is a coward. But for the purposes of using footage of him giving a speech, he is classed as a public figure, an thus cannot rely on traditional libel per se. He will have to proove that sinclair et al bear him actual malice, which they almost certainly don't since its kerry they want to nail. In fact if anything, prior to this I'm certain they had no idea who he is and were just using stock news footage.

That's why I said this whole libel debate is stupid. Racists used to use it to shut down the civil rights movement in the same way as it is being used here. Not for any true greivance but to silence critics of any particular cause, in this case john kerry. Even if the prof's case was adjudicated under the doctorine of libel per se and his damages were presumptive, his basic complaint is that he was included in a piece of film - by his own consent - that later was described as capturing "many who did not even serve in Vietnam:" [I'm paraphrasing the original post but that was the gist of it] clearly this is not really about money, which is his only availble remedy at law, but rather politics. And the courts have had an almost uniformly dim view of this since late sixties/seventies. You probably have lot's of clever atguments about why this libel case is different to the ones in the south, but I don't see it. Its just one man using the courts to silence others, not because he was really injured. So that's why I'll say again this kind of shit is a stupid anachronism. And his suit is going no-where.

Actually, I have no clever arguments about why this case is different. I have no training in law and thusly nothing more to say (isn't that refreshing around here?), and why would I scramble to make excuses for someone I don't know? If he has to prove personal malice and things are as you say, then the system may be against him, and I'll be interested to see how it works out. However, simply because he is a professor or because he is taking to task a company over its politically-charged documentary does not mean that he is is obviously politically biased. Possibly, yes, but again, that's for the courts to decide.

I wonder, though...you speak of "the dispute" as being this alleged case of libel in question. Now, can one really say that, in speaking at that rally, that man knew that his footage was going to be broadcast decades later during a highly partisan presidential debate; and that in said broadcast it would be inferred nationally that he was a liar/fraud?

My point: Is "the dispute" regarding his presence at that rally, or in the case today? The two are interwoven, certainly, but one can hardly say he knowingly involved himself in the latter.

I wonder, though...you speak of "the dispute" as being this alleged case of libel in question. Now, can one really say that, in speaking at that rally, that man knew that his footage was going to be broadcast decades later during a highly partisan presidential debate; and that in said broadcast it would be inferred nationally that he was a liar/fraud?

My point: Is "the dispute" regarding his presence at that rally, or in the case today? The two are interwoven, certainly, but one can hardly say he knowingly involved himself in the latter.

My bad; It's late and I'm not being clear. The "dispute" is the public contretemps over the vietnam war (and of course therefore the anti-war movement). His libel suit comes from the alleged inaccuracies of the reporting of his involvment in it - the anti war movement that is. Hence yes for 2) - wherein he thrust himself to the forefront of the antiwar movement, at least far enough to be caught publically on camera; and yes for 3) - as if he had not been involved in the antiwar movement we would not be having this discussion. Is it fair that he did not consider what would happen to his public participation in all aspects, I don't know, but it is the same treatment that anyone else would get. For the purpose of the anti-war movement he's a public figure, that much at least he should realize from his participation in it. Say someone publically campaigned for a fascist/communist/whatever groupf in the 60s, it would always be out there and subject to similar mislabeling.

Look, I'm sure this guy has a bunch of clever lawyers, (although how he's paying for them begs another question), and I'm equally sure they loose interest in this case arounf Nov. 3.

What's more, 90% of people who may, in fact, have legitimate libel cases cannot afford or find representation. I'm sure this guy is not footing the bill on a professors salary, so why all of a sudden is he getting the pro-bono break on what is a very marginal case at best. I've actually met unarguably private individuals who have stronger cases than this who were told by lawyers don;t bother its not going anywhere, it just seems odd.