obviously anyone with an IQ above single figures could easily discredit everything within the film with less than 5mins unbiased research,but the fact remains that there is a lot of deliberate and malicious misinformation presented - does the law protect against such abuses of freedom of speech?
2006-09-08 02:38:51 · 9 answers · asked by simon r 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
the film is fiction but the trouble is that it presents itself as fact which subverts the minds of the simple (Billy J) - surely the law should protect against brainwashing even stupid people?
2006-09-08 02:53:16 · update #1
Savs, please do your own research - from the wrong pictures of the hole in the pentagon (59 people died) to the big ending - $167 billion dollars of gold going missing from the world trade centre - that happens to more gold reserves than have ever been in the US & it is pretty unlikely that amount of any single commodity would be kept in the one place. please think about it.
2006-09-08 02:56:49 · update #2
savs, in a court of law, if you were presented with a witness who you could prove told a handful of obvious untruths how much of their testimony would you fall for?, sorry, believe?
2006-09-08 03:13:53 · update #3
i would think it would be slander , the movie just trashes many people with blatant lies , you do have to admit it was entertaining though , that guy has quite an imagination
2006-09-08 02:44:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As for the content, no, there is no clear violation of any law. There would have to be clear evidence of intent to defraud or slander. Both are very difficult to prove given the right of Free Speech and the use of clever marketing.
If you notice, the "filmmakers" claim that the project started as a fictional movie, but the "overwhelming evidence" convinced them to turn the project into a documentary. (As an aside, there are still people today who believe "The Blair Witch Project" was at least partially true). This affords the film a good deal of protection, as who is to say what is intended to be "fact" and what is left over from the "fictional" script.
A similar strategy was used recently by the maker's of the "DaVinci Code." The intrigue and controversy surrounding the film proved to be excellent (and free) publicity. The filmmakers fed the controversy by presenting the movie as "based on fact" adding fuel to the media bickering between fanatical Catholics and fanatical conspiracy chasers (the guys obsessed with the evils of the Church, the Masons, the Illuminati, etc.).
When it came to actual accountabilty, however, the filmmakers rhetoric became more like "Hey, It's just a movie!" By stressing the movie's fictional nature, the "Code" team shrewdly protected itself against any attempts at prosecution.
2006-09-08 11:11:32 · answer #2 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prosecuted for what? Telling a story? Not in the US.
I can discredit most of the facts asserted in the Lord of the Rings as well. That doesn't mean I can sue them for lying.
Even under defamation laws, the standard of proof is that the plaintiff would need to show that the producers intended the story to be taken as absolute truth, as opposed to an opinion or speculation, and that they knew at the time they made it that the contents were objectively false.
2006-09-08 12:06:11 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was subject to a TV programme. It consisted of lies and stories made up by a couple of people. I took the case to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I won on every count. The TV company had to apologise. They did at 11.30 at night. I then started legal action against them. It cost me my business and my health. The BCC is toothless. The TV companies unless you are very rich can mess around until you pull out through lack of cash. Lies are easy for TV companies as they know the BCC can do nothing and without money who is going to sue.
2006-09-08 13:14:50 · answer #4 · answered by deadly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where exactly is the "misinformation" in that film?
I feel it summed the whole situation up quite well.
Please give details.
I personally challenge you to give a better explanation as to why the buildings fell than the controlled demolition theory presented in that film.
EDIT - and the buildings falling then?
And don't forget, this is a film, not a trial. I still find there to be more truths in that film than you would find on a typical day of fox news. WMD? lol.
Oh - Please post a link to the real pictures of the pentagon, then, if you think they used false ones. I'd love to see them. I take it you have one of the plane on the lawn?
The court of law thing - Two months ago, Bush denied the presence of foreign CIA jails. Yesterday he admitted their existence. Are you saying we should take everything he says as lies? As according to you, he would not stand up in court?
The gold thing - I'm trying to google america's gold reserves to find out how much they had. Can't find any information. Please give me your source. A link would be nice. Thanks
2006-09-08 09:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by savs 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but there should be a law against people who want to prosecute others because they expressed their views.
2006-09-08 09:46:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, there isn't.
There is no law against lying, unless the lie is used to defraud someone out of something monetary.
2006-09-08 09:42:15 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law protects against lies insinuation libel and slander not opinion.
2006-09-08 09:52:00 · answer #8 · answered by joseph m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
spreading fiction is not against the law and only ignorant people believe in this crap anyhow .
2006-09-08 09:41:15 · answer #9 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋