Anti-Kerry Film Producer Accused of Libel

October 18, 2004 10:57 AM

Anti-Kerry Film Producer Accused of Libel 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."
posted by Postroad (18 comments total)

Well, we all knew "Stolen Honor" was bullshit before, this just helps confirm it as such.

Stolen Honor is obvious propoganda, it has no need to be based in truth, its just a flashpoint for the GOP to latch on to once the faked fury over "MaryGate" has died down.
posted by fenriq at 11:40 AM on October 18, 2004

November 2, where are you? What will the (news - web sites) Filter look like without all the (news - web sites) political (news - web sites) posts (TM).
posted by Outlawyr at 11:43 AM on October 18, 2004

Once November 3 comes along, we'll just have all sorts of new posts about how great/crappy the president is.
posted by hughbot at 11:56 AM on October 18, 2004

claims that many of the supposed veterans

Doesn't the selective use of the phrase "many" cover their asses, legally? The statement can still be misleading, but it's not illegal is it? The guy mentioned was one that actually was there, and "many" doesn't mean "all."

I think this is important because it's only a matter of time before bloggers will be sued for libel and slander.
posted by mathowie at 12:07 PM on October 18, 2004

Hopefully this will stop the Sinclair network from airing this propaganda.

Doesn't the selective use of the phrase "many" cover their asses, legally?

If there's enough implication in the statement then it can be considered slander. It might be a bit of a grey area depending on how it was done.
posted by destro at 12:13 PM on October 18, 2004

You really think the election will be decided on the night of the 2nd? I'm expecting extended craziness.
posted by ao4047 at 12:14 PM on October 18, 2004

You really think the election will be decided on the night of the 2nd? I'm expecting extended craziness.

Anybody know the URL of a good online pool for resolution of Election 2004?

This whole affair smells like roadkill.
posted by Busithoth at 12:27 PM on October 18, 2004

"Doesn't the selective use of the phrase "many" cover their asses, legally?"

In short, no. As Destro points out, it's the implication that the person pictured at the time of the statement is in fact one of those "many" that creates the libel. If I circulated a picture of Matt H with the caption below it, "Many message board operators have secret clown fetishes," the implication would be clear.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:31 PM on October 18, 2004

VVAW, early '70s: Many soldiers behaved dishonorably in Vietnam; they did it because the moral climate was so poor and the military culture in-country encouraged dishonorable behavior. The honorable thing to do is admit that bad things were done, and fix them.

O'Neill, early '70s: I never saw that. Ergo, it didn't happen. Also, VVAW veterans and "Winter Soldier" testimonials do a grave dishonor to the country and their fellow soldiers by testifying to atrocities.

Colin Powell, Norman Schwartzkopf, other career officers, c. early-'70s through present: Bad things happened in Vietnam. They happened for lots of reasons, but one of those was because we had a military culture that devalued honor. We can fix that.

"Stolen Honor" / Swifties, c. 2004: VVAW veterans behaved dishonodrably by testifying to things that we didn't see; furthermore, some of them weren't really even veterans.

Former VVAW veteran, present: The Swifties behave dishonorably by calling our honor into question.

The constant: Everybody talking about honor, and the extremes having very little overlap between the concepts of "honor" that they deploy.

Sure, some of the swifties are lying scum; sure, some of the protestors at the VVAW marches never served or didn't serve in combat -- attention whores, what have you. Those are pathologies of inidividuals -- do we take them as damning the group?

If we don't say one side is wrong and the other right, how do we get past this? The McCain-Kerry rapproachment makes a good exemplar, I think, as they took the effort to do something radical: They actually had conversations about it, and came to understand one another's positions.

There are some people who just can't be reached in any such argument, and maybe, just maybe the Swifty hard-corps are those last tought nuts. If so, then I guess we give up. But it's also possible that the swifties dredged up bad feelings in a bunch of guys who can be reached by reason. But does tit-for-tat help them see past anger to someone else's idea of honor?
posted by lodurr at 12:37 PM on October 18, 2004

On a related note:

Sinclair's own Washington bureau news division chief, Jon Leiberman said yesterday of 'Stolen Honor': "It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election. For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election. I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose," Leiberman told the press. "At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility."

Also, Sinclair stock is at a 52-week low today.

posted by Otis at 12:42 PM on October 18, 2004

There are some people who just can't be reached in any such argument, and maybe, just maybe the Swifty hard-corps are those last tought nuts. If so, then I guess we give up. But it's also possible that the swifties dredged up bad feelings in a bunch of guys who can be reached by reason. But does tit-for-tat help them see past anger to someone else's idea of honor?
posted by lodurr at 12:37 PM PST on October 18

Lodurr,

This is about something besides a bunch of former soldiers who disagree about what is and is not historically true.
To understand, simply look at the financing and backgrounds of the Swifties and their leaders.
Its a whole cloth creation for one partisan political purpose and anyone following this charade cannot truthfully deny that.

Oh, and someone is lying. I think I know who it is too!
posted by nofundy at 12:58 PM on October 18, 2004

I don't doubt someone is lying (surely you didn't miss the "lying scum" bit), and I don't doubt that a lot of people are in this for hte "wrong" reasons.

I should have been clearer: Fighting those people on a factual basis doesn't do much good. We've got to get back (again, probably ad nauseum) to the cause of the anger that makes the lying scum's message resonate so strongly.
posted by lodurr at 1:50 PM on October 18, 2004

O'Neill, early '70s: I never saw that. Ergo, it didn't happen.
He hasn't even got that dodge open to him. From the Cavett interview:

MR. KERRY: Did you serve in a free fire zone?
MR. O'NEILL: I certainly did serve in a free fire zone.
MR. KERRY: [Reading] "Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves -- man, woman or child. This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1."
MR. O'NEILL: Where is that from, John?
MR. KERRY: Geneva Conventions. You've heard about the Geneva Conventions.

posted by George_Spiggott at 2:05 PM on October 18, 2004

I just want to say to Campbell: You go, boy.
posted by fungible at 3:34 PM on October 18, 2004

Well, we all knew "Stolen Honor" was bullshit before, this just helps confirm it as such.

Well, unfortunately, this is simply false. From the fact that an author has been accused of libel over a certain publication, it does not follow that said publication is certainly fabricated. It seems most likely true that it is fabricated, but that is not a valid way to arrive at the conclusion that this is certainly the case.
posted by ed\26h at 4:14 AM on October 19, 2004

Sinclair Broadcast Group's Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, says he's been fired for his public criticism of the company's plans to produce the program.

posted by Otis at 6:43 AM on October 19, 2004

And also....

Sinclair Broadcasting Shareholders Demand Officers Return Profits From Insider Trading
posted by Otis at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2004

Some background on misleading photo captions in litigation, for those interested.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:06 PM on October 19, 2004