DEFAMATION?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:
I will refrain from commenting on this particular issue UNTIL I have seen the movie (which might take long because I'm not a big fan of "boost American ego shows"). On the other hand, I will agree that sueing in the US is out-of-hand and people can sue for the most idiotic reasons... and still win.

But, on the other hand, I'm curious to see how "historically accurate" this "historically accurate" movie is! In the past, many such shows were not really historically accurate as they glorified American actions by presenting only one side of the story. Don't worry, Americans are not the only ones trying to re-write history to make themselves look like good guys.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

---

To be honest I based my claims of "Historicly accurate" on the claims of people who were actually there....so I figured if anyone would know....I could be wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:


My understanding of the issue, based on a feature I read some time back, was that the AADL was using the incident of the hand because it was the only legal point they could complain about, in a film that has far mroe to do with Broadway musicals than it does with a shining folk epic of Arabic culture. There are tons of gross distortions, of which I (being non-Arabic) catch only a few. But I can sympathize. I can imagine what it would be like if the US had some gigantic folk treasure, respected the world over, and India did an animated film version that used a famous comic adlibbing his endless anachronisms, then redid everything else in terms of Bollywood: ideas, sets, music, people, etc.

So I wouldn't pay too much attention to the surface of this suit. Like so many things in the legal world, the surface hides rather than discloses what's going on.

---

And you do not believe that the "Good Folks" in film making and other entertainment fields in places other than Hollywood ever exagerate or skew the facts to "entertain"? I will also point out that their suit had nothing to do with the childrens film not being a technically accurate rendition of the original folk tale...IT WAS about Arabs being depicted as being "cruel" in their punishments...They WERE bitching about the TRUTH being pointed out in a song. That was the basis for the suit.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Ummm, I can't comment on what the film actuall portrays as the "accurate history" as I have not seen it. Just like to say that how do you know it is "historically accurate"? If it is just the film company saying it then I would be sceptical at best. Remember that Pearl Harbour was not technically accurate, and as for the Patriot...

I just want to say that quite a lot of the stuff that gets thrown around about the whole Somalia incident is misimformation at best. The war lords over there acted barbarically but some of the mistakes the US made in handling the issue just beggar beleif.

I am with Epona on this one - it will all come out in the wash if the case is a load of nonsense. If they have a point, however, they should have the opportunity to let it be known. It is not for us to decide either way as I for one don't know enough to make that kind of judgement.

---

I base my comments on my discussions with friends and friends of friends who were there. I have close ties to the military and I live in an environment where I see many of them on a regular basis. The US troops did NOT act barbaricly, they distributed food, and kept the people who were trying to get food safe, the war lords did not want the people to HAVE food so they got pissed. Do NOT even attempt to confuse the POLITICAL wrangling that was going on with what was happening on the ground in the country.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Magik,

One thing to keep in mind is that a LOT of these trivial lawsuits actually DO get thrown out before they get to court....you just never hear about that because it doesn't make interesting news.

This is one of my pet peeves also. As Garnet said, when someone can sue - and win - for spilling hot coffee on themselves, then our judicial system is in need of a serious overhaul.

I used to get really flamed over this, but then I saw report on one of the prime time evening news shows about outrageous work-related lawsuits. A guy in NY sued the subway company he worked for because they wouldn't promote him to conducter. The fact that he weighed 400+lbs and could not physically fit into the conductor's "booth" was a moot point. Another guy sued because his employer wouldn't let him carry a gun to work. He claimed to have a phobia that required him to carry a gun. The list went on and on. All of these cases made big news (at least locally) when the suit was filed, but NONE of them ever actually made it to court. Of course, the American Public wasn't told that.

I agree that our Political Correctness has gotten WAY out of control. Have you heard the controversy concerning the World Trade Center statue yet? It's supposed to be based on the photo of the 3 fireman raising the flag at Ground Zero. The problem? The artist has decided that 3 white firefighters "don't accurately reflect the cultural diversity of the NY Firefighter community"....so there will be 1 white firefighter, 1 black firefighter, and 1 hispanic firefighter. Needless to say, the firefighters themselves are upset about this, but the racial lobby groups are applauding the vision and wisdom of the artist.

My question is this? What would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do if the photo was of 3 black firefighters and the artist wanted to change it to reflect the "cultural diversity".....talk about a firestorm.

[norompanlasolas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
The USA is acknowledged to have the highest incidence of nuisence lawsuits in the world...we are turning into a nation of pansies, if we spill our hot coffee on ourselves we want to sue the people who brewed the coffee...utter stupidity....

---

yes, i heard some pretzel company filed bankrupcy because of a huge lawsuit some guy filed because he choked on one while watching football. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


yes, i heard some pretzel company filed bankrupcy because of a huge lawsuit some guy filed because he choked on one while watching football. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

---

Cheap shot cheap shot and he didnt even sue so...hehehehe funny too

[fable]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
And you do not believe that the "Good Folks" in film making and other entertainment fields in places other than Hollywood ever exagerate or skew the facts to "entertain"?

---

Of course they do, all the time. But we were discussing the example you brought up, and nothing else. Feel free to start another topic devoted to the skewing of facts outside Hollywood, and I'll join in.

I will also point out that their suit had nothing to do with the childrens film not being a technically accurate rendition of the original folk tale...IT WAS about Arabs being depicted as being "cruel" in their punishments...They WERE bitching about the TRUTH being pointed out in a song. That was the basis for the suit.

And like I wrote already: "My understanding of the issue, based on a feature I read some time back, was that the AADL was using the incident of the hand because it was the only legal point they could complain about, in a film that has far mroe to do with Broadway musicals than it does with a shining folk epic of Arabic culture." In other words, they were so infuriated with what was done to a cultural artifact that they've tried to find the slightest pretext to mount a legal challenge.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: fable ]

[Garnet FalconDance]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

My question is this? What would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do if the photo was of 3 black firefighters and the artist wanted to change it to reflect the "cultural diversity".....talk about a firestorm.

---

Cerek, Wed. I heard of a story that in Calif., the schools will be *required* to teach an extremely in-depth unit on Islam--to the point the students will adopt a Muslim name, dress the part and will actively plan a jihad. (I'm awaiting separate confirmation on the story) Now while, as a homeschooler, I also have a unit on Islam planned (as a matter of course....the other major religions are also being studied actively), I cannot help but be alarmed.

If any Christian group (or, heavens forbid, pagan!) planned this same plan in the public schools, the courts would be all over it! So why do some receive the benefits and others receive the boot?

Garnet was it public schools that were to be teaching this or was some private school? If it is public schools, they are not allowed to teach any religion according to the supreme court...heck you arent even allowed to say the pledge of allegience.

[Morgeruat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:

To be honest I based my claims of "Historicly accurate" on the claims of people who were actually there....so I figured if anyone would know....I could be wrong.

---

Just to add some truth and knowledge to this (not saying you guys aren't being honest, but you don't seem to have all the facts, I read Black Hawk Down almost 4 years ago, and I work with Sergeant First Class Eversmann, (Staff Sergeant at the time of the book/movie), I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan on seeing it tonight or tomorrow, and the book is extremely accurate, the author flew over to Somalia and got the perspective of several of the Somali people, it is a very good and clear work of TRUTH, according to SFC Eversmann the movie is extremely well grounded in fact.