NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/lawsuit.storm.reut/index.html

Apparently slander is now protected by freedom of speech:
"In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims, the court upheld the rights of all artists, whether filmmakers or authors, to create works that are inspired by real events without being forced to interpret those events in a particular way," Warner Bros. spokesman Scott Rowe said.

And now we know why terrorists will never try to blow up the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/lawsuit.storm.reut/index.html

Apparently slander is now protected by freedom of speech:


And now we know why terrorists will never try to blow up the Supreme Court.Yep... and these are the people who define the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

This was a Florida Supreme Court ruling, not a SCOTUS ruling.

And we all know how well the Florida judiciary functions. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/lawsuit.storm.reut/index.html

Apparently slander is now protected by freedom of speech:


And now we know why terrorists will never try to blow up the Supreme Court.

Yep... and these are the people who define the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Pure silliness -- on your part.

1. Not the US Supreme Court, but rather the Florida Supreme Court.

2. Defamation (i.e., slander & libel) are narrow exceptions to the First Amendment.

3. The case doesn't actually have anything to do with slander.

4. The ruling was that making a film about a real event -- here "The Perfect Storm" with George Clooney -- doesn't make you liable for damages if your portrayal is not 100% accurate.

5. Do you honestly think no movies should ever be allowed to be made about historical events that aren't 100% accurate?

6. As is usually the case with this type of film, it specifically stated it was based on a real story and included fictionalized accounts.

7. Under your understanding of law, I think you would now be guilty of "slander" against the US Supreme Court. :p :D

*snip*

EDIT: Should have made clear #7 is a joke. I'm sure everyone realized that, but I should be more careful. Also deleted gratuitous snide remark (my speciality!).

Surprisingly, I agree with cat tribe on this. (Well except maybe for point 7 :p ).

I've not seen the film, but I am sure that in no way the portrayal of Billy Tyne could really be considered actionable. I doubt, for example, that they portrayed him as a pedophile when he was not. Simply because he was portrayed as quarelsome is not reason enough to say that his reputation was damaged. It's just an interpretation of his demeanour, not a deliberate falsehood intended to wreck his reputation.

In any case, he is dead. And you can't slander/libel the dead. Black letter law, I believe.

Surprisingly, I agree with cat tribe on this. (Well except maybe for point 7 :p ).

I think we might both implode!!!!! I'm going to hide under the covers now. :D

SOL. simple put

I think we might both implode!!!!! I'm going to hide under the covers now. :D

Yes, I also am very scared. :)

Lacadaemon and Cat-Tribe agreeing...

hmmmm... isn't that a sign of the apocolipse...


*flips through Bible.*

Damn... guess not. :D

Pure silliness -- on your part.

1. Not the US Supreme Court, but rather the Florida Supreme Court.

2. Defamation (i.e., slander & libel) are narrow exceptions to the First Amendment.

3. The case doesn't actually have anything to do with slander.

4. The ruling was that making a film about a real event -- here "The Perfect Storm" with George Clooney -- doesn't make you liable for damages if your portrayal is not 100% accurate.

5. Do you honestly think no movies should ever be allowed to be made about historical events that aren't 100% accurate?

6. As is usually the case with this type of film, it specifically stated it was based on a real story and included fictionalized accounts.

7. Under your understanding of law, I think you would now be guilty of "slander" against the US Supreme Court.

I'm thinking you didn't even read the story -- just lept at a chance to bash the judiciary.


Agreed. Except proabbly for point seven :p

They took some artistic liberties with the story to present it in a way that is more marketable. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Modern Language association doesn't send a representative to kick me in the crotch every time I reword a cited idea rather than use a direct quotation.

In fact, such rewording is encouraged over a "cut-and-paste" job. If I can take artistic liberities with academic research then filmmakers can certainly do so with enterainment.

Agreed. Except proabbly for point seven :p

C'mon. That was my best point! Can't you ever be reasonable????!!!! ;)

I still fail to see how any of this constitues a ruling that "lies are the truth"

Whoever wrote the title to the thread was careful to put it in quotes as well.

An explanation Mr. Lying Thread Author?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/lawsuit.storm.reut/index.html

Apparently slander is now protected by freedom of speech:


And now we know why terrorists will never try to blow up the Supreme Court.

The writers for somethingawful.com can sleep easy tonight.

The Modern Language association doesn't send a representative to kick me in the crotch every time I reword a cited idea rather than use a direct quotation.

I would be particularly impressed if they did.

They took some artistic liberties with the story to present it in a way that is more marketable. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Modern Language association doesn't send a representative to kick me in the crotch every time I reword a cited idea rather than use a direct quotation.

In fact, such rewording is encouraged over a "cut-and-paste" job. If I can take artistic liberities with academic research then filmmakers can certainly do so with enterainment.

My two nieces, age 9 and 6, got in a big argument recently about the Titanic.

Their grandmother had to settle it by explaining to the little one that (a) her kids book about the Titanic was not entirely accurate in saying no one drown and (b) no, they couldn't go on a cruise on it.

Talk about "artistic liberties." :)

Cat-Tribe pretty much leveled this, but I'll chime in as well because I'm bored enough to do it.

When telling a narrative "this really happened" is the easiest way to smoke out a beginner. Here's the thing-what really happened is irrelevant.

I'll say it again:

What really happened is irrelevant.

Doesn't matter. Sometimes thing happen in real life that aren't believable on stage or screen. (I don't write novels, so...) Somethings just don't work. I work with a collaborator who characterizes it as WWBC (What Would Be Cool). What makes the best story. Absolute reality doesn't always make the best story. Perfect Storm wasn't a documentary or study on what happened to the Andrea Gail. Hell, half that movie by nature had to be made up. For all we know they spent the time after they lost contact crying and giving each other handjobs.

Now, why this decision was made and why it doesn't mean 'lieing is now the truth.' The thread author quoted it actually. Had they ruled in the plantiffs favor they set a precident that there is one interpretation of events that can be deemed 'true' and all other interpretations then are not only 'false' but actionable. That would limit artists ability to create 'reads' on events, to interperate and portray events without the risk of being censored. What would the criteria for 'truth' be? They can't get into that decision making. The real lesson is don't watch narrative films in order to find accurate biographies. But, really, your english teacher should have taught you that a long ass time ago.

This also doesn't mean that 'lieing is the truth' now. It means that in a narrative they are not going to get into that decision making process for the artist.

The terrorist comment is just assinign. So much so that I'm not going to spell that right. Terrorists are fundementalists, which means among other things that they are for one interpretation of things and that interpretation being controlled. A ruling for the plantiff would have provided that. This is the stupidest thing that has come from the 'post' world, that you simply ally the terrorists with what ever you're against as if it's common, thus putting whoever disagrees with you as 'with the terrorists.' Think that crap through, cause it don't fly.