Opus Dei may sue Da Vinci Code

[NVMojo]

January 23, 2006

Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic group devoted to defending traditional morality and dogma, may sue the makers and distributors of "The Da Vinci Code" movie.
The film, based on a hugely popular novel by Dan Brown about the Holy Grail, portrays a member of Opus Dei as a murderer, the London Mirror reported Monday.
"We cannot exclude legal action," said a spokesman for the group, founded in 1928. "To present a member of Opus Dei as a killer when we devote our lives to helping others is unfair.

more...

http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20060123-015934-7953r

[Hardrada]

1. This should be good!

I'm sure they must have a lot of dirty laundry that might be brought forth.

[longship]

2. Ahhhh! Hey guys... It's a work of fiction.

Get over it.

[SweetLeftFoot]

10. So is what is Opus Dei believes

Da Vinci Code - Fiction

Religion - Fiction.

[MADem]

22. Yeah, and if I recall, there was a disclaimer at the front of the book

that said exactly that. Such whiners--guess they don't like their secrets getting out, even in fictionalized form!

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Well, to be frank. I hope that "Opus Dei" does sue

.

Well, to be frank. I hope that "Opus Dei" does sue the author and the publisher and perhaps the distributors of this stupid book as well as those behind the movie. Not that I am pro or con as to "Opus Dei" because I am not. What I am -- is a lawyer who -- is damn sick and tired of books and other publications including hardcopy "news" as well as the "news media," overall, twisting reality and getting away w/ it due to loopholes in defamation law in America. This kind of twisting has given rise to such misinformation and entertainment-as-news as Murdoch's Fox News to name but one source.

This book and movie was presented in such a manner that most folks who read/saw it truly thought it fact -- fine print or not as to "disclaimers." This so-called "DaVinci Code" crap has become a cult. How stupid can it get?

If "Opus Dei" can present facts to claim defamation or other causes of actions, then here's to them!! That, despite my anti-Vatican stance due to their coercive attempts to mix religion into our American laws and to bully our American political candidates, voters, and lawmakers.


.

[Raster]

4. there's a difference between a work of fiction masquerading as, well,

a work of fiction and a work of fiction masquerading as a factual news story. Surely as a attorney you do see the difference?

However, I do agree with you on faux. The tripe and drivel spouted on that network should be exposed for exactly what it is, tripe and drivel.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Again, I stated:

"If "Opus Dei" can present facts to claim defamation or other causes of actions, then here's to them!!" = if they have a viable case then hats off to them (for all the reasons that I stated including the example as Fox as news).

[Raster]

6. personally, i hope they try it and end up with legal egg on their faces.

nasty organization. a fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. christian cross or muslim crescent. a fanatic is a fanatic...

[salin]

7. Let them bring the suit - but for a different reason:

let more people become familiar with Opus Dei - and the desire (like that of the evangelical reconstructionists) to redo governments/constitutions and the like where religious doctrine becomes the rule of land rather than secular laws (that is laws rewritten in accordance to religious doctrine). That may be a big simplification of Opus Dei - but let more of the public be aware of some of the fanatics and their goals/visions for entwining political power with religious theology.

[Fovea]

14. This problem goes all the way

back to Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air.

I have no problem with pseudo documentary as a fictive device, but the producers of such have an onus of responsibility to ensure that it is known to be fiction, IMO.

[TaleWgnDg]

17. Exactly. Because duping the public with fiction as facts

has gone on way to long, causing much damage. Part of which is because defamation law in America has a huge loophole large enough for a convoy of trucks to rip through which is does, quite often, e.g., Fox as "news" 24/7, etc. And, they know they can get away w/ it. Thus, if Opus Dei can sue those behind both movie and book regarding The DaVinci Code, then it may set a new precedent in law (my wishful thinking). Hats off to them!

[Captain Hilts]

8. Isn't it kind of late for that? The whole planet's read the book by now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Why isn't the member of Opus Dei suing on his/her own behalf?

Can anyone who's read the book tell me who they are?

[hatrack]

11. Two blind men arguing about which shade of yellow to paint the kitchen

This should be interesting, in a trivial, vapid sort of way. :eyes:

[no_hypocrisy]

12. If the suit is brought in the U.S. courts, Scalia will be creaming

for the opportunity to get his opinion on record. Rumor has it that he is a member of OD.

[SharonAnn]

16. Him, and Clarence Thomas, and Roberts and Sam Brownback, and

Rick Santorum, and Louis Freeh, and Peggy Noonan, and Bob Novak?

[TaleWgnDg]

18. For the first time in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court . . .

.
For the first time in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a majority of Roman Catholics on the bench. Oops, of course Alito isn't as yet on the bench but we've been *assured* he will be.

Of these five members, four are uber-conservative Roman Catholics:

1. Clarence Thomas
2. Antonin Scalia
3. John Roberts
4. Samuel Alito

All of whom have a personal religious agenda.

That is, to place their own personal religious beliefs into America's laws except in one legal area: the death penalty remains the option of the states. Most folks euphemistically call it "social programs." I, on the other hand, call it as it is: religion-into-law.

The 5th Roman Catholic on the SCOTUS bench is the remaining swing vote, Anthony Kennedy (of the duo swing-votes of O'Connor and Kennedy). However, Kennedy doesn't appear to be hell-bent on inserting his religion into our laws. Kennedy's no centrist nor moderate. Since Kennedy's arrival upon the bench, SCOTUS has moved more and more to the right, therefore Kennedy appears to be "moderate." At times, though, Kennedy is known to take the reigns and claim moderate legal territory amongst all the shouting and parental wagging fingers of the legal uber-conservatives on the bench. Overall, Kennedy is a light-weight conservative.

There's irony here. Years ago it was the religious rightwingnuts, who railed against Roman Catholic immigrants claiming they would have a foreign sovereign allegiance to another country that would demand and dictate their political and legal actions. Rome. The Vatican. The pope. Southern protestants, northern protestants, mid-west protestants railed against Roman Catholics, calling them "Papists" as a slur. And, now look. Not only have those very intemperates voted-in 4 uber-conservative Roman Catholic upon our highest court in the land, they are also admitting that they have no legal scholars of their own?! What irony.

[Demeter]

13. Helping Others What? That Is The Question

So maybe Opus Dei only helps others to murder, and commit other crimes. Same difference.

Maybe Opus only comforts the criminals, hides them, funds them, lies for them. Same difference.

Maybe Opus only trains lawbreakers. No difference.


Other groups take artistic license in their stride; they don't go to court over fiction. So it must not be fiction.

[yellowcanine]

15. Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt for portraying Jerry as a child molester.

He lost.

[TaleWgnDg]

19. No, the facts and circumstances were that Flynt depicted

.
No, the facts and circumstances were that Larry Flynt depicted Jerry Falwell in a parody in Flynt's infamous magazine (Hustler) describing Falwell screwing his own mother while both were in an outhouse. Falwell sued for defamation of character (lies, falsehood, fabrication) and extreme emotional distress. Flynt won because in defamation law if its a joke -- here it was a parody -- then it's not defamation.

Here's the url to Flynt's parody of Falwell and his mother:
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/falwelladL.jpg (add www. to it)

I opted not to post it in DU.

_________________

edited to add: parody is not the legal loophole I was discussing elsewhere in this DU thread

[yellowcanine]

20. Sorry, I confused the Flynt/Falwell tiff with Flynt's "Chester the

Molester" feature in Hustler. Hard to keep Larry Flynt's outrages straight in my mind. Only in America!

[emad]

21. Opus Dei seeks adult rating for Da Vinci Code

By Hugh Davies
Telegraph)

The Catholic organisation Opus Dei is asking censors to give the Hollywood version of Dan Brown's best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code an adult rating because of the "hateful image" of the group it portrays.

Opus Dei, which is often criticised as ultra-conservative and secretive, is particularly angry that a key figure in the story, a self-flagellating monk, is cast as a member and commits a grisly murder at the behest of a delusional bishop.

It said there were no monks in the order. In addition, the story "falsely depicts" members "lying, stealing, drugging people, and otherwise acting unethically".

Marc Carroggio, a spokesman, said: "Any adult can distinguish reality from fiction, but when history is manipulated you cannot expect a child to make proper judgments."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/21/wdavinci21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/21/ixworld.html

[pschoeb]

23. I'm guessing then that the Masons could probably sue practically thousands

of pulp novelists