Odd, but as much as I detest Michael Moore, I'm not sure this is a good thing.
While it is certainly true that Michael Moore is a waste of skin that could be far better uttilized by burn victims, I worry about the precedent that could be set.
Yes Moore lied (that's not news), and yes he twisted a good mans words (that's what he does). But the idea that someone can sue for a news report that makes them look bad, is troublesome.
A few months ago I had a conversation with some rather left leaning aquaintances. They took on the most condecending provincial & arrogant tone when talking about red state types who, in their view, vote the way they do out of ignorance, and a lack of appreciation for the obvious superiority of their betters (that would be the left). There were some other rather scary things said that I will not repeat here. Suffice it to say several in this rather likeable and intelligent group had been utterly consumed by BDS. Which is sad, but a topic for another post.
Now if one did an investigative piece on a similar group, got all the proper releases signed, and released into theaters MOONBATS!! THEY LIVE AMONGST US!! could they then sue for presenting them in an unflattering light?
There is little comparrison between Moores deciet and the above scenario, but the far left has little compunction about stiffling unhelpful speech. And if this soldier wins and a precedent is set, then I can easily see anyone who does an expose' on DU type behavior getting their asses sued, particularly if they are marginally capitalized.
This smacks of the UK libel trials. Unentended consequences and all that...
It's 2:00 AM. I'm probably missing something....what am I missing?