http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031029/ap_en_mo/bowling_for_columbine_suit_2 OK, lawyers, does he have a case?
Not a lawyer, but if Moore put the video interview w/ James Nichols (Terry's brother) in BFC without Nichols' permission, it seems like he'd have an airtight case (assuming he could prove he didn't give permission, or Moore couldn't prove he did--not sure who the burden of proof would be on). I imagine he'd also have a case for libel if the movie makes it seem as tho Nichols played a role in the OKC bombing.
Nichols is on a long list of people who said that Moore tricked them and in some cases flat out lied to them regarding BFC. A few of the Columbine victims and their familys are non to pleased with the fat bastard.
Oh, come on. Complaining about this is like complaining that Jerry tricked you after you appeared on the Jerry Springer show. You can hardly say Moore hides the kind of reporting he does - he had shows on cable and broadcast TV for crying out loud.
maybe it's just me, but i never got the impression from BFC that terry nichols was involved in the OKC bombing
How can he have been "tricked" when Moore interviewed him with a film crew sitting next to him at the table?
From the article... " In the lawsuit, Nichols, who lives in Decker, said Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview." The article never mentions that he was tricked into doing an interview, it merely points out how Moore lied to him.
Of course he has a case. It's already been filed. The rest is just fancying up a story and negotiating a settlement. P.S. - if Nichols were a real man, he wouldn't hide his gun under a pillow.
Same here. Moore interviewed them, gave a few stats and facts and a healthy dose of his own opinion, which is clearly within his rights. The people complaining are simply people who don't agree with his point of view.
In the movie, Nichols tells Moore he will show him the gun under his pillow if he doesn't film it. A DVD of BFC is probably all the evidence he'll need.
Would this help? [ironic note] if Nichols were a real man, he wouldn't hide a gun under his pillow [/ironic note]
I guess Nichols is dumb enough not to say during the interview that he didnt want to answer a particular question or say he thought the purpose of the interview was different.
So? Obie said "How can he have been "tricked" when Moore interviewed him with a film crew sitting next to him at the table?" The article stated " In the lawsuit, Nichols, who lives in Decker, said Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview." It's safe to say that he knew there were camera's there and he was being interviewed. Reading is fundamental.
Exactly, I'm not doubting Nichols' stupidity. I was merely pointing out that he knew there were camera's there and that an interview was going on.
All he had to do was say "Stop. No Thanks. Goodbye". I'm not a fan of Moore, he's a nutjob plus BFC contains a lot of inaccuracies. But this suit like many others is laughable.
Regarding one of the parts in question (the gun under the pillow), Nichols told them he'd show Moore as long as he didn't film. Moore's camera man shot the footage across the hallway from another room. Technically, he breached his agreement on film. I think it is a ludicrous lawsuit, but Moore probably hung himself by sticking that part in the movie.
Nice condescension. Not necessary. My point is pretty simple. "Nichols alleges Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview." I'll assume that is true. Perhaps I was too concise in my remarks, regarding the legal impact of that fact, so for purposes of helping you understand, I'll expand further: So what?