Q: Can the Clenis and members of his former cabinet sue ABC

[CatWoman]

for this bullshit farce of a mockumentary?

[ellenfl]

1. my thoughts exactly. eom

[Coexist]

2. probably not - if they claim it is a "docudrama" with a disclaimer

but I am not an attorney - I don't even play one on T.V.

[CatWoman]

3. did you stay at a Holiday Inn once?

:)

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Okay, that's the second time I've seen a lawyer/Holiday Inn...

reference today. I have to know. Where did that come from?

[CatWoman]

7. LOL

Television commercial ad :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. Ah, now I know why I'm clueless. Thanks!

[deaniac21]

24. Should be "stayed at at Holiday Inn Express"

[Coexist]

14. yeah - they have people rushing in to help in crisis situations

and when the bystanders thank them (i.e. where did you go to law school, medical school) person says, "I didn't, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

[helderheid]

4. But they are using his name and portraying him - fiction or not, isn't

that slanderous?

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Interesting. What if Clinton & Co. sued for defamation anyway

just to get the true facts on the record? And plus, doesn't seem to matter if ABC calls it a docudrama if it misrepresents a true record of the facts and defames a person's reputation as a result. Think of "War of the Worlds". Orson Welles got into trouble even though before the broadcast, they announced it was a radio drama of an H.G. Wells work of fiction. It's the results that count, not the disclaimer, IMO.

[Drum]

12. I think that the Clinton folks would have standing,

if the boilerplate legal crap of ABC doesn't already indemnify them. But I'm no lawyer either.

On the other hand, maybe all of US could sue them...a class-action demand for truth, and rejection of propaganda.

Hmmm?:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

8. Who the hell is Clenis? (Why all the cutesy bastardization of names?)

[CatWoman]

10. I'm sorry

but the Clenis is DU speak for Bill Clinton.

Hey, I didn't invent it, you know.....

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. Hey, I got a light slap this morning for referring to...

a list of senators that included Leiberman as "nominally democratic."

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. I'm not fond of that nickname for President Clinton myself.

But it's pretty standard around here.

[Sinti]

19. It's a compound word that's been abbreviated - Clinton and Penis

the Clenis is the cause of all evil in the world.

[Justice Is Comin]

15. I think there is a case for it

because of the incredibly extraordinary circumstances of the way they have refused to alter it, despite being advised by the principals and even congressional representatives that they are about to use public airwaves to slander and libel an ex president and his administration.

They have tried to claim that this is based on the 9-11 commissions report and that is a bold faced lie. The report says just the opposite.

That in addition to the fact that they are giving this six hours of commercial free airtime takes it to a level far beyond just poor judgment. This is intentional infliction of damages, with total disregard for its defamation of character.

Just because a merchant puts up a huge sign that says "no refunds", he cannot sell you a pair of shoes that falls apart the second time you wear them and refuse to give your money back.

There is an implied warranty of merchantability of fitness meaning that any product sold has to be fit for the purpose for which it is intended. No sign can absolve him from that responsibility.

This is the same thing. A disclaimer during the six hours with the express purpose of hoping to cover their ass against liability, while in the direct act of knowing their intent is to portray these six hours as factual occurence, is admission against interest.

They have been put on notice by everybody from Clinton and Albright to researchers who have pointed out that this is based on pure lies. They have time and a chance to correct their misrepresentations without consequences.

If they still choose to air it, there is a serious case for a huge libel and slander suit here in my opinion.

[rinsd]

16. How is there a case for it?

Seriously, slander laws in this country are incredibly stringent because we value free speech. It is even harder for a public figure which all of these people are.

After all the shit said by conservatives about Clinton in various mediums including that he was a rapist, that he was a drug king pin etc.

He didn't sue the American Spectator, a hit piece magazine that was wholly devoted to promoting bullshit stories about him, why would he do so now?

[Justice Is Comin]

20. But this is use of public airwaves.

We own those airwaves. ABC is only licensed to use those airwaves by the FCC providing they adhere to responsible programming guidelines.

This has many aspects of abuse of that trust.

The topic...9-11.

The timing...airing right at the anniversary.

The election...ABC inserting themselves right in the middle of a partisan position.

The facts...They have been advised by countless groups, individuals and even the targeted subjects that what they are about to air is lies.

A court would not look favorably on a petition with these mitigators to absolve ABC from intentional grievance of damages.

[rinsd]

21. So?

"We own those airwaves. ABC is only licensed to use those airwaves by the FCC providing they adhere to responsible programming guidelines."

What does the FCC have to do with slander?

"This has many aspects of abuse of that trust."

Ok.

"The topic...9-11.

The timing...airing right at the anniversary."

When else would you air it? Would you air a dram about MLK on his b-day or some arbitray date? How about a movie about the Declaration? Would its release on July 4th be suspicious to you?

"The election...ABC inserting themselves right in the middle of a partisan position."

In a legal sense, this is so much grasping at straws.

"The facts...They have been advised by countless groups, individuals and even the targeted subjects that what they are about to air is lies."

Many of whom haven't even seen it and are relying on second hand reports.

Yeah that's some strong legal ground to stand on :eyes:

[Justice Is Comin]

22. I could make a convincing case for it.

I suspect it's only going to get alot stronger after Monday night.

This is tantamount to network electioneering. No network is licensed to do that anymore than they can air a string of 4 letter words.

[rinsd]

23. To whom?

"I could make a convincing case for it."

Perhaps to DU. Again with the electioneering.

Sinclair Broadcasting was doing network electioneering because they were profiling a current candidate and they did so very close to the election.

So how are you going to make the case that an unflattering protrayal of an administration out of power for 6 years 2 months before the election is electioneering?

Here's a link to the law

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/11cfr100.29.htm

" (a) Electioneering communication means any broadcast, cable, or

satellite communication that:

(1) Refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;"

[Justice Is Comin]

26. "Unflattering portrayal?"

If the advance publicity on this can of crap is accurate, it's lies and defamation.

The only absolute defense to slander and libel is the truth. ABC has deliberately sabotaged any effort to present the truth.

No plausible purpose can be advanced with all that is known of their partisan actions to date and what has transpired that ABC doesn't have a purpose to influence public opinion prior to a crucial election.

The prinicpals at ABC are putting their ass right on the line.

I wouldn't want to be one of their stockholders when they realize the hornets nest they will have after Monday night.

[rinsd]

29. "If the advance publicity on this can of crap is accurate, "

If? That's my issue. I haven't seen it.

You haven't seen it and you claim you can make a slander case out it.

You also didn't respond to any of my points on why you couldn't sue for slander or electioneering.

[madinmaryland]

27. Is it possible that if Clinton sued, he could also have an injunction

against ABC to prohibit them from televising this Mockudrama?

[Justice Is Comin]

31. There is not enough known to

get an injunction plus they are still scrambling trying to find a way to tamp down this tsunami they have put in motion.

And I'm convinced much more damage will be effected against ABC and the republicans if it airs. Much more!

[rinsd]

17. If he didn't sue the American Spectator, why would he sue ABC?

[Hubert Flottz]

18. I hope the Big Dong ends up owning ABC...

Then maybe we can get our side of things on the air!

[Sydnie]

25. the Big Dong?

We still talking about the same Clenis here? :rofl: :rofl:

[Hubert Flottz]

34. That was what the headline said!

"CLENIS"...their menace?

Edit...The misguided muscle...

[mainegreen]

28. How can you 'disclaim' libel/slander involving real people?

If I say 'this is just a story' and then proceed to publish an article stating that Bob Saget raped the children on Full House every day and postulate it as truth (he didn't so don't sue me Bob!) my disclaimer can't possibly protect me.

[helderheid]

33. agreed

[tabasco]

30. It's difficult for a "public figure" to win a libel case ...

but not impossible.

This is an over-the-top false accusation that Clinton allowed BL to escape.

The producers are aware that it is false and have persisted.

It could damage President Clinton's reputation with an average member of the community.

But you know Bill Clinton will never sue. He is somewhat above all this swift-smearing disgraceful character assassination. I think Clinton has faith in the American people to discern the truth.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Probably not

They are public personalities and this is a "docudrama", with more emphasis on the drama than the docu. That will give the artists more dramatic license than they would have with a documentary.

It's pretty foul. Basically, they're dramatizing history as told by spinmeisters and that is something that should make even reasonable who support Bush -- if there are any left -- very uncomfortable.

When I see something like that coming from a point of wiew with which I for the most part agree, I start wondering if I don't need a reality check. I don't know how many Bush Bubbahs are that self-reflective. Not very many, I'm afraid.