Can President Bush sue Michael Moore for Libel?

[inglourious basterd]

I have not yet had the opportunity to see Farenheit 9/11, but I am aware of some of the claims that Michael Moore has made. One of the most "shocking" claims include a supposed link between Bin Laden and Bush. This leads me to believe that President Bush is the Moore's direct target.

Bowling for Columbine was just as ambitious. And with some clever editing, Charlton Heston and the NRA were made to look like fools. I consider this ( http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html ) a pretty objective site because it is only a criticism...it offers no counter opinions regarding what is right. So any claims that this source is "biased" is irrelevant.

The reason I feel that Moore's films suck is because they cause viewers to accept his conclusions since they "feel" right rather than because they are right. In political documentaries (i.e. propoganda) moviegoers should always be skeptical of reality vs. apparent reality in film. Propoganda was a powerful tool of persuasion for people who chose to align themselves with the Nazi party after WWI. I do not make the claim that Moore is a facist (that would be just as ignorant as calling Bush one), but I merely make that association because the use of political commentary in film is a very dangerous due to its strong persuasiveness. This is true regardless of what side of the fence you sit on). That being said, I am even less a fan of people like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly (people on the far right).


Now...why would in the world would I believe that Moore is guilty of faulty editing?

The reason is because, if you have read the above link, Moore makes Heston a villian through a variety of techniques. You could read a scene by scene criticism here ( http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ ) for more info on that. Again, the websites I cited here seemed to be very objective since they were merely criticisms. They offer no counter-opinion on what is "right".

Libel is defined as a false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. Would Character assassination with incorrect facts be considered libel? (eg: Heston in BFC or possibly Bush in F911) Now...I do not want to imply that the facts in Farenheit 9/11 are incorrect. But suppose IF he did present false information, THEN would Bush be able to take legal action in order to vindicate himself?


Disclaimer: I agree with many of Moore's conclusions, but do not agree with any of his arguments. I feel that they are simply untrue. It is possible to have similar conclusions but to not have similar reasons for having those conclusions. This is the reason I do not agree with him.

[cstroman]

You can sue Michael Moore the same way you can sue the KKK for their views. Which means you can't.

I love catching all the interviews recently where he gets called out and can't back anything up. It's great.

And he thinks it's "outrageous" to call him Un-American. Well, KKK members think they're trying to save "America" from the people they think are wrong...so is Michael Moore. He has "his view" of what America should be and he's made a propoganda film to push that view. I think the KKK is un american and I think he is the same.

Michael Moore's Propoganda, or KKK propoganda. It's all hatred and all the same, just different stupid white men behind the camera is all.

Of course I do find it absolutely hilarious to see the "liberals" who flock to his film and call it "ludicrous" for people to call for some to "not see the film". They cry censorship, etc.

Then they support censoring the California State flag, Censoring the Ten Commandments Monument, Censoring the Nativity, Censoring the Pledge of Allegiance, Censoring the right to choose to pray in school if one wants, Censoring the display on the individual (clothing with religious messages, teachers wearing a cross necklace visible, etc) of any religious icons/messages. Censoring of American Currency.

Censor, censor, censor. It's all hypocritical.

See Michael Moore and his followers want to be able to censor what THEY don't like, but reserve the right to not be censored in what they agree with.

KKK, and Michael Moore all get put in the same boat to me. Haters.

[cstroman]

BTW, this is more of a political thread than about the movie (although it would be impossible to have a thread about it that is NOT political) so this should probably be moved to the Politics forum.

[Beeblebrox]

I consider this ( http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html ) a pretty objective site because it is only a criticism...it offers no counter opinions regarding what is right. So any claims that this source is "biased" is irrelevant.

The two webpages you cite are NOT objective. They are quite selective in their criticisms, what they show and what they don't, and there's no apparent reason to believe them any more than Moore, particularly that Bowlingfortruth site.

So if lack of objectivity taints criticism (as you're asserting it does with Moore) then these sites are no more reliable than Moore. And the only reason to believe them is if you already agree with them.

Now...I do not want to imply that the facts in Farenheit 9/11 are incorrect. But suppose IF he did present false information, THEN would Bush be able to take legal action in order to vindicate himself?

That is actually an interesting question. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer. But I think the facts would have to be false. They'd have to be deliberate.

But when you're talking politics, I'm not sure how the law applies. I mean, Bush and other politicians lie about other people all the time in campaign ads. Certainly Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and other political commentators lie in print and on air (both libel and slander). So why don't the objects of those lies sue? It's probably just not worth it. But I don't know.

[JCR]

Even if he could, why would he want to? Read the book No Logo by Naomi Klein. It tells of the time mcdonalds sued a couple of british green activists who were making some extreme claims about them. The case resulted in shit loads of bad publicity for Mcd's, even though they were in the right, and the defendents managed to get the CEO of Mcd's to admit that eating a lot of their food over a long period will probably give you heart disease, which was the main reported fact of the case. And in the end Mcdonalds won £60000 ($100k), at which the 2 hippies who lived in a squat just laughed at; they had no way of paying, leaving Mcd's with the choice of going back to court to send 'em to jail (which would have meant more bad publicity) or letting them be. McDonalds chose the latter, and the weekend after the case ended the pair were back protesting outside a Mcd's in central London, shouting their claims as loud as ever. More info about the mclibel: http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

The moral; long drawn out libel trials rarely do anyone any good. Bush probably knows this. And I doubt there will be anything in the film that wasn't in dude wheres my country, so bush would have sued already if he was going to.

And besides, for Bush to sue, wouldn't the claims have to be untrue? Ha.

[Criminal Rock]

I find moors movies pretty funny but I hardly agree with them. In addition, you can sue anyone for anything, but it does not mean you will always win.

P.S. one would think if the claims were true, congress would probably impeach bush, but since even the most radical congressional representatives have enough common sense to know that bush did not help Mr. Bin but he has done the exact opposite on trying to kill him instead.

“The Hilarity is Confounding.”

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by cstroman
Then they support censoring the California State flag, Censoring the Ten Commandments Monument, Censoring the Nativity, Censoring the Pledge of Allegiance, Censoring the right to choose to pray in school if one wants, Censoring the display on the individual (clothing with religious messages, teachers wearing a cross necklace visible, etc) of any religious icons/messages. Censoring of American Currency.

Wow, talk about missing the point completely.

[Buck Turgidson]

NY Times Co. vs. Sullivan

And Charlton Heston IS a demented, racist asshole.

[MadsenOMC]

Michael Moore does not hate America. Questioning the president or disagreeing with the president does not mean you hate America. Why can't some people understand that? Disagree with his methods or conclusions, but don't label him anti-American just because he doesn't swoon for Bush or buy his bullshit. And cstroman, do you have anything to say other than ALL liberals are evil? That is all you ever talk about. It's getting a little stale, and it's a pretty limited viewpoint.

[JCR]

I think michael moore could sue this thread for libel. I've not seen the film but I have read dude where's my country? and it does NOT say bush had anything to do with osama bin laden. it says that the bush family had other business links with other members of the bin laden family and that dubya approved of special flights to get members of the bin laden family out the usa when commercial flights were still banned right after 9/11. And this is true- no one is saying it isn't, and moore is just asking the question- why were they given special treatment? Which is reasonable enough, no?

[MadsenOMC]

Excellent point JCR. Moore-haters and conservatives all over these boards keep stating that Moore is claiming that Bush has a relationship with bin Laden when that is completely false. And they say that Moore plays loose with the facts. Irony anyone?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Moore-haters and conservatives all over these boards keep stating that Moore is claiming that Bush has a relationship with bin Laden when that is completely false. And they say that Moore plays loose with the facts. Irony anyone? [/B]

I totally agree. They're lying and manipulating the truth to prove that Moore lies and manipulates the truth. It's just ludicrous.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by psudoazn
I have not yet had the opportunity to see Farenheit 9/11,



You could have stopped right there.

[Wurms]

Would Character assassination with incorrect facts be considered libel?

It would if they were incorrect facts. But a studio (Miramax) will not spend millions and millions of dollars to release this movie without making sure every fact is true, or the opions are expressed soley as opinions. I am damn sure they dont want to get sued.


The only problem I have with Moore's Bowling For Columbine is that he only states the facts he wants :) Statistics are the worse form of facts on earth, and Moore used these in BfC. Moore talked about how Canada has 10 million families (30 million population for the country), and 7 million firearms, but only 165 deaths last year. While America has 11,100 deaths by guns and we have around 250 million people. Well, seeing 11,100 compared to 165 seems like the US are killing everyone on the streets, not true. I did the math and it came out like this:

CANADA
30 million / 165 deaths = 181,818. So, one out of 181,818 people in Canada die by firearms.

USA
250 million / 11,100 deaths = 22,522. So, one out of 22,522 people in America die by firearms.
-------------


181,818 / 22,522 = 8.07

So, for every 1 Canadian death by firearm there are 8.07 American deaths by firearms.
-------------

Now, take the populations of both countries: 250 million / 30 million = 8.33

For every 1 Canadian there are 8.33 Americans.

So looking at these figures, the death rate by firearms in America is less than Canada's.
--------------

In order for the death rate to match the population rate. America would have to kill 350 MORE people each year. So, in actuality, Canada is less safe with firearms

250 million / 11450 deaths (adding 350 MORE deaths) = 21834

181,818 / 21,834 = 8.327 (so almost 8.33). This is with an EXTRA 350 deaths by firearms each year in America.
---------------

And why do people call Moore anti-american? He is only doing what every other journalist in the world does, he reports the facts. CNN and every other news network most likely knows about everything in F9/11, but they dont report it cause they will lose half their viewers (those that call Moore a fat anti-american asshole), plus advertisers, etc. So they choose to remain neutral and only show what their viewers want to be shown. Moore doesnt have to worry about advertisers and losing viewers for lower ratings.

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wurms
CANADA
30 million / 165 deaths = 181,818. So, one out of 181,818 people in Canada die by firearms.

USA
250 million / 11,100 deaths = 22,522. So, one out of 22,522 people in America die by firearms.





You could have stopped right there.




























The ratio is:

Canada - 1:181,818

USA - 1:22,522


That ratio already figures in the population difference (x8) -- You can't take the ratio, then multiply that by 8. Using the math you are using, everyone's odds of winning the lottery would be higher the less they played.

Let me break down the math you are doing to show you how wrong it is --

*(All of the comparisons I'm using follow the same ratios as yours, so if you want to go nuts and try to redo all this, knock yourself out, but you should just trust me at this point.)



----------------------------
US has 80 pies, 8 of which are pumpkin (1 of 10 are pumpkin)

Canada has 1 pumpkin pie out of 80.
----------------------------
US
80/8 = 10

CANADA
20/1 = 20
-----------------------------
80/10 = 8

So, for every Canadian Pumpkin pie, the US has 8 pumpkin pies.
-----------------------------
Now take their total number of pies!

80/20 = 4

So for every Canadian pie, there are 4 pumpkin pies.

Ah ha! This clearly shows the pumpkin pie ratio is clearly higher in Canada!
--------------------------------
In order for the pumpkin pie ratio to match, America would have to make 18 more pumpkin pies a year!! So actually, your chances of finding a pumpkin pie in canada are lower! Check it out!

80 pies/16 (with 18 more pumpkin pies!!!!) = 5

20/5 = 4 (this is with the US making 18 more pumpkin pies)
----------------------------------




I'm not hating, but that is an exact comparison of the math you did. Like I said, you found the ratio after the first step -- All of that other stuff does make any sense. You can clearly see from the numbers Moore posted that the ratio is way higher in the US -- It doesn't matter how many peoplpe are here -- That number is already fixed into the ratio.

I hope you don't use this math playing poker. Didn't anyone ever tell you to check your work?

ie. You switched the populations for Canada and the US somewhere in your math.

Also, just looking at the ratios -- in America, 1 out of 22,522 people die. Right?

Okay, 1/22,522 = .00004

Population of Canada = 30,000,000

30,000,000 x .00004 = 1332

1332 people would have to die in Canada for the ratio to be the same.

[Anthony4sho]

If Michael Moore fabricates all these things then how come the people that were had don't come out publicly and say so?

[KcMsterpce]

OK. Let's look at this again:

Originally posted by Wurms
CANADA
30 million / 165 deaths = 181,818. So, one out of 181,818 people in Canada die by firearms.

USA
250 million / 11,100 deaths = 22,522. So, one out of 22,522 people in America die by firearms.
-------------
...the death rate by firearms in America is less than Canada's.
--------------


I think Bubba was right. You shoulda stopped before you started doing wierd and screwy math.



Three people go to a hotel and get a room for $30. They each pay $10. After they go to their room the manager realizes that he overcharged them, and that the room was supposed to cost $25. He gives $5 to the bellboy to return to the three people.

The bellboy realizes that $5 is difficult to split among three people, so he pockets $2 and then gives $1 to each of the three people.

So now each person has paid $9 (the original $10 minus the $1 that was returned). That means they've paid a total of $27, plus the $2 for the tip, is $29. Where's the extra dollar?