Will they take legal action against ABC/Disney? The Mouse that Roared

[peacebird]

Poll question: Will they take legal action against ABC/Disney? The Mouse that Roared

After many harsh words and not-so-veiled threats by Dem heavy weights ABC/Disney made cosmetic changes to their fantasy rendition of the run-up to 9/11. What will happen today?

[peacebird]

1. I hope it's option 4 - the three all sue but I fear it will be option 5

Crawl into their hidey-hole and tell us we fought the good fight....

[Totally Committed]

2. I'll believe legal action will be taken when I see it....

Until then, as Tony Soprano says.... FUGGETABOUDDIT!

TC

[wakeme2008]

3. my real choice is

Berger & Albright will sue ABC/Disney but without Clinton.

[papau]

4. I agree - :-)

n/t

[JDPriestly]

5. From what I have hard, Albright could sue.

Berger and Albright would have to show they suffered damage from the libel, that their reputations were good before the libelous or defamatory statements were made. Albright has an impeccable reputation, and should be able to show that her reputation has been harmed by this movie. This is especially true if, as I believe, there is utterly no evidence supporting the fabrications about her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation.)

Berger does not have the impeccable reputation that Albright has, but the fabrications about him were pretty audacious so he still may have suffered some damages. They are both public figures, so they would have to show that ABC and the film's makers knew or had reason to know that the fabrications were false. ("Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation.)

Also, Albright and Berger would have to respond to the defenses that the falsehoods were not just expressions of opinion or not intended to be taken seriously (Remember "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court. The decision strengthened free speech rights in relation to parodies of public figures by extending the "actual malice" test of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell.) ABC's statements that the accounts are fictionalized may be an attempt to set up this defense. I don't think it will work because the film was presented in some venues and originally advertised as being the true story. It was probably disseminated to certain audiences with advertisements proclaiming it to be true.

My spell-check didn't work on this post, so please forgive my typos.