Anti-Kerry Film Producer Accused of Libel

[mzmolly]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=4&u=/ap/20041018/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_film

PHILADELPHIA - A Vietnam veteran shown in a documentary criticizing Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s anti-war activities filed a libel lawsuit against the movie's producer Monday, saying the film falsely calls the veteran a fraud and a liar.

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 narration 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.

Campbell attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing that he received a Purple Heart and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service in Vietnam.

:toast:

[WoodrowFan]

1. YEAH!

sue the m---f--ers!

[hippiechick]

2. Perfect !

Kerry doesn't need to address this directly & roll in the mud with the BFEE, let the others who are smeared in the flick take up the battle for the entire group.

:hippie:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. It's also a better lawsuit.

Kerry is a public figure, so for him to sue he would have to prove actual malice, basically meaning the allegedly defamatory publication was made with the knowledge it was false. This rule (N.Y. Times v. Sullivan) makes it really hard for a public figure (typically a politician) to sue for defamation Having voluntarily subjected themselves to public scrutiny by running for office, they have to put up with some brickbats because the public is entitled to know as much as possible about them, and the First Amendment permits this, for the public good. But if you're not a public figure, you only have to show that the publication was false and that it was made negligently (that the maker of the publication should have known it was false and didn't properly research it). So the other people who appear in the movie and whose reputations would be harmed could have a pretty good claim. I am wondering if they can get an injunction preventing the thing from being broadcast. I know it's a prior restraint, which the courts don't like to do, but they could argue that their reputations would be irreparably harmed and that monetary relief wouldn't be an adequate remedy. I hope they f*ck Sinclair to the wall.

[TransitJohn]

3. Bwahahahaha

:kick:

[IdaBriggs]

4. Hurray! Hurray! Hurray! nt

[MoonRiver]

5. Vote a 5 and get it up!! Freepers are working it as we speak.

:kick:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. This is the key to stopping Sinclair from showing the film

This is the key to stopping Sinclair from showing the film:

If Kenneth Campbell were to be encouraged to sue for a stay, he may be able to stop the film from being broadcast. The tricky issue is one of prior restraint of free speech. Such restraint is usually not allowed, but if he has a good libel case, and if the film has been publicly shown previously, he might be able to stop it from being broadcast. I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on the internet, so I'm not sure if prior broadcast is even a factor.

First Amendment lawyers, please opine.

----

Edit: I've already been anticipated by Campbell and his lawyer, who specifically mentions Sinclair Broadcasting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x913094

[glitch]

7. It makes me sick that these guys have to fight this again - however

swift boat liars are fat rich targets and the libel suits should be easy to prove...:evilgrin:

[TaleWgnDg]

8. ooops . . . . . . .

TORT REFORM!! TORT REFORM!! TORT REFORM!!


****************************
"Soon after becoming governor, (GW)Bush declared tort reform
an 'emergency issue' and appointed judges who made it all
but impossible for Texans to bring class action lawsuits against
polluters." -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., environmental activist
and environmental attorney, quoting from his book entitled,
"Crimes Against Nature," excerpted at
http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/excerpt_xml.asp?isbn=0060746874
****************************

[Killarney]

9. vote a 5

[mzmolly]

10. Done.

:)

[apnu]

11. Yahoo news seems to have died for me, here is a Google news link

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9949767.htm?1c

[mzmolly]

12. Thanks for the new link.

:hi:

[kiahzero]

16. In the Guardian, no sign up required:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4559634,00.html

[kiahzero]

13. Holy crap!

This is my professor! I had him for American Foreign Policy!

This is awesome!

[mzmolly]

20. WOW!

:wow:

[kiahzero]

22. Not only that

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/coffin.lawsuit.ap/

I have Professor Begleiter for "Road to the Presidency" this semester.

I think I'm damned lucky to have such kickass professors.

[2Design]

14. good I hope more sue them and get lots of bucks and then sue

sinclair for showing a libel film and then bush and cheney etc

[LynneSin]

17. DELAWARE IN DA HOUSE BABY!!!

Score one for the small state!!!

[kiahzero]

23. Indeed

Delaware r0x0rs the proverbial b0x0rs. We were already on the Freep's hate list over the FOIA suit regarding Dover... I can imagine they're going to be going apeshit at this point. Bet the College Brownshirts are going to be just as bad, too.

[LynneSin]

18. Here's the link from the Local Paper in Wilmington Delaware!!!

http://www.delawareonline.com/updates/UDprofessorsues.html

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. They libel veterans who really put their ass on the line.

In order to support a fraud who avoided combat. These people are sickening.

[mzmolly]

21. Sickening indeed.

:(