OT: slander/threat in a review

Back to post

Comments

VOGuy wrote on 8/23/2004, 3:56 PM
Hi Filmy

1) There is no such thing as bad publicty. (proven recently by Mel Gibson and Michael Moore)

2) Sticks and Stones hurt... Names do to, but it's up to you whether you're going to let them.

Remember, whenever you release a production, or any artistic endeavor, for public viewing, you're in "Showbiz". --which means you are putting yourself up for public acclaim or ridicule. The smart people in showbiz find ways to turn any kind of negative or positive reaction to their advantage - and they remember not to take such criticism seriously.

Also, remember that your "reviewer" is in "showbiz" also. In this case the more slimy he is, the more attention he gets, which is what he wants. Since he is such a creep, you owe him no responsibility to show respect if you decide to respond in similar manner... However, I would try to take the "high" road if possible.

Before you take any action, ask youself "How can I use this to my advantage?" Many others have found ways to use similar moron's tactics to catapult their careers. Note how many truly famous directors and actors have suffered horrible reviews, only to return later to receive Oscars.

FWIW
Travis ( www.Announcing.biz )
filmy wrote on 8/23/2004, 5:07 PM
Just interesting things..all in some way relate to this. The below comment about Alec Baldwin is interesting, but also clearly he was not doing the interview and repeating one persons name over and over again either. The snippet about the Maryland case sort of boggles my mind in the post Columbine age. Yeah - and I know a lot of these are "death threats" and some relate to racist goings on which is not what is going on in my case - but I am most worried because this person I don't know who it is - but maybe sometime in the past I pissed him off and he really is some psycho. Really gang - these days who *really* knows?

1998:
The jury in the trial of Richard Machado, a former University of California at Irvine student, deliberated for a day before returning a verdict confirming that sending threats via the Net is the same as doing it over a phone or through the regular mail.

From 2001:
A judge yesterday dismissed one of the four charges against a Maryland man accused of sending threatening messages over the Internet in the wake of the Santana High School shootings.

From a 2001 interview on CNN with Tatiana Gau from AOL:

CNN: What about online threats? Is that a common thing and can you give an example of what an online threat may be and if you do get one, even though, it's April Fool's, definitely take it seriously and contact your server?

Not sure of the date, I think it was 2000:
Paul Clark, 33, a British computer expert who admitted setting up two sites offering $108,000 to kill his American e-mail friend and her husband, was acquitted of trying to arrange the murder, but was found guilty on two charges of threatening to kill. Prosecutors failed to prove that anyone other than Clark or the intended victim could have found the sites.

This I found interesting:
Alec Baldwin, appearing on the David Letterman show, made an impassioned harangue against the House committee conducting the hearings and Chairman Hyde in particular. Baldwin's outburst called for the audience to "go down to Washington and kill Henry Hyde and the whole damn committee! Kill 'em all." Without asking a particular person to perform the killings, or stating that he would specifically go do it himself, this invective becomes unbelievable and, for that reason, is protected speech.

2000:
On the web site was a grisly depiction of a head oozing blood and a picture of a teacher whose face morphed into a Adolf Hitler. The web site also asked for donations to hire a "hit man." Acting in J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that those graphic depictions and the solicitation simply went beyond what was protected speech.

Interesting add on about this:
When the principal first learned of J. S.'s comments on his Web site, he contacted the local police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The two agencies investigated and identified J. S. as the author of the site, but neither was able to bring charges because J. S.'s polemics did not fit the legal definition of harassment or threats under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code

And to the 'just let it go' crowd:
The infatuation was chronicled on a Web site where Youens described his murder plot in gruesome detail.

The above is really creepy - read more at her website set up by her family: Amy Boyer
farss wrote on 8/23/2004, 5:15 PM
Filmy,
read my post below. Don't waste time here, apart from good words there's zip anyone here can do to help you and we are scattered all over the planet.

If it was me, I'd be dialing "000" or whatever the appropriate number is where you are. This isn't about bad reviews, it's about YOUR personal safety and YOUR right to freedom of speech.

Bob.
filmy wrote on 8/25/2004, 9:07 AM
here is just an update for those who care. Still waiting on the studios legal team but on my end just spoke with a lawyer and they brought up a few things I had not thought of. Because of the wording of a few comments I have a case for sure on defamation. In at least one spot the reviewer calls me "unscrupulous", and that term in the context of this 'review', is defamation. Hmmm...so there ya go. As for the "threat" part it is a grey area but because one of them is in the first person, as in "I want to" and not "someone should" it makes it more of a "real threat." However because the person will more than likely hide behind free speech/satire it may be hard to prove. Bottom line for this lawyer is that it might be better to try non-going to court means first. On the other hand the use of framegabs is illegal, fair use in this case has nothing to do with it the lawer said. So that part is for the studio to deal with if they desire.

The other side of all of this is that if it can be proven that this review makes my peers look at me in a less light (er - in a bad light?) than that is another way to approach it. The fact some of the descriptions have nothing to do with my directing may be secondary because of the wording that would lead people who read it to believe these things might not ever want to hire me. I would say this is true in a sense because if someone has never ever seen the film (and read the credits as to who did what) would take this at face value - that the film sucks but, more importantly, I suck. (Think this can't happen - on CNN last night there was a piece on John Kerry being on Jon Stewart and why that is. They interviewed people in that age range who said if it wasn't for Jon Stewart they would not know anything about who Bush or Kerry were. Pretty strange to hear that, but than again my cousin always thought 'Blair Witch' was a real film/real story and looked at me with much doubt when i tired to explain it was just a movie)
apit34356 wrote on 8/25/2004, 10:49 AM
Glad to see that things are starting to sort out. Please have patience while I explain my background. Having started as an engineer/scientist I worked my way to corp. board by age 25, (25 years ago), then from military computers/electronics to biomedical robotic systems to high-end vision systems, I have backed publishing companies, land development, to Independent film projects, and Image is everything for typical corp. decision of who's going to get the work. I would take chances, but it was with my own money, no boss or board to report to. If a board was involved, rules must be followed. I retired in the mid 90's to spend time with my children, which is the real challenge. My point here is that I understand the business world.

I believe that if this review will damage or keep you from getting good jobs, then you must fight it. Fighting it may require a legal challenge, publishing your own article, making your own "short" about reviewing, but while you organize your approach, like Spot's advice, know who you are talking to and control your emotions as needed and control the discussion as needed.

I wish that this review was not important, but if you are at a crossroads in business, you must protect your interest and image, remember there are always bumps on the road.
filmy wrote on 8/25/2004, 6:39 PM
Well here is part of what the studio lawyer said -

[SNIP - quotes from the article]
A good artist has to be ready for some criticism no matter what. Regarding the others, they go over the line imho and you can at least threaten to sue.

He actually pointed out a few other things - such as the reviewers "false portrayal" of me as a drug addict and of my "professional abilities". Common word with both lawyers now - defamation. The lawyer says:

While the First Amendment protects free speech and general film criticism, it's protection does not extend to false and defamatory statements such as those made above.

So in short it looks like there is going to be something that happens.
JasonMurray wrote on 8/25/2004, 11:34 PM
Not to throw cold water on the legal front and all, but have you written to the publication's editor as many of us suggested...?

You may elicit an apology and retraction that way far easier...
wcoxe1 wrote on 8/26/2004, 10:36 AM
A retraction will not always show up, or even be read, when someone does a search for reviews, even, or especially, in this internet age.
JasonMurray wrote on 8/26/2004, 5:41 PM
True, but in this internet age the original article can be updated for future readers to remove the inappropriate content.
filmy wrote on 9/15/2004, 11:14 PM
WARNING: What follows contains harsh and raw language. Read at your own risk.

So the studio sent off a letter from their lawyer. What was said was also comfirmed by another lawyer, in another state I might add, that I had consulted with. Just so everyone knows what the "publishers" attitude is here is their reply to the studio...this is NOT a joke. This is the real deal, the real reply to a studio threating legal action against them.

Did you guys even consult someone with even a degree in paralegal

DVDeviations wrote on 9/15/2004, 11:28 PM
They can't even spell "interesting"!
apit34356 wrote on 9/15/2004, 11:38 PM
Its nice to see that higher education in action! Filmy, sounds like the publisher and reviewer are twins in their conduct and use of the English language.
filmy wrote on 9/15/2004, 11:43 PM
So to toss gas onto this the "publisher", not the "reviewer", has now written sort of a commentary and pointed out "facts" about me - such as the "fact" I urinate on my wife and that I cry during sex. He also suggests I am the the studio CEO's lover and will be thankful when he rolls over in bed tonight. You get the idea. None of which are really "facts" but ones presented as such...and even stated as "100% true" .
I had a strong feeling this would be the response because they do not take any of their lawsuits, of which there are many I am finding out, to heart. The concept they seem to live by is "We are clearly above the law!"
apit34356 wrote on 9/16/2004, 12:15 AM
More like, we live in the sewer, and the legal system doesn't like the smell. The staff working for this person must have nice working conditions. The staff probably hates this guy,so talk to the staff, this person is way too crazy to run a tight ship.
B.Verlik wrote on 9/16/2004, 1:46 PM
They can get away with that while we have to worry about the music we put on a dumb wedding video. Go figure.
filmy wrote on 9/16/2004, 6:18 PM
You know what is ironic about this whole thing? it is sort of like being in 2nd grade and going "My daddy can beat your daddy up" over and over, back and forth - except right now the only "forth" has been a legally adivised and worded letter sent to these people. Most of the "back" has come from their side. However the sad thing is that it isn't kids - well, at not least in the age sense - overall. So the way I figure it now it is the "publishers" has either sent out a request to SPAM the studio or is using several various fake names (Which wouldn't surprise me either) to spam the studio.

I go some of these forwarded to me - a few "highlights":

I hope you go bankrupt and you all contract herpes. Or at the very least, eczema.

Not only do you have no integrity but you are a greedy, materialistic piece of shit wasting money that could be used in more important causes. How much does it cost to produce a piece of junk movie? Imagine giving that much money to charity? What do you think is more important, starving children and sick puppies or you, you greedy moron?

You have such a small fan base, if any outside yourself, that a bad review would in fact be damaging. Way to go. How about I sue you on behalf of humanity for making bad movies using the money your mom gives you for lunch to fund it?

So lets see - first we had a "reviewer" take a review far overboard and turn it into a personal attack on me. On the advice of 2 lawyers the studio sends out a simple letter requesting some sort of retraction. Next we have the publisher boldly standing up for his (?) right to slander people and proves it by making statements about me with bold headings of "100% true" and now we have the start of personal email attacks clearly led by/requested by this "publisher".

How much of a hole can be dug here? Against them I mean. It seems like with every breath that somehow originates from this place/person a deeper hole is being dug.


JasonMurray wrote on 9/16/2004, 8:20 PM
I'd post a small note on your website thanking them for taking time from their day to bother trying to send hate-mail. Publish a snippet, it'd do more to destroy their credibility than anything else.

Always be the bigger man, be polite, and you'll come out of it smelling like roses. :)
farss wrote on 9/17/2004, 3:51 AM
Perhaps you could use a photo of the publisher and what he has to say as promo material. I doubt even MM managed to attract such vitriol. Look on the bright side, these guys could end up making you famous / rich.
But seriously, these guys really seem to have overstepped the mark by a huge amount, I don't know that much about US law but surely these guys are setting themsleves up for a fall or is it part of some ploy on their part.
apit34356 wrote on 9/17/2004, 6:26 AM
I like Farss ideal. How about a 30 sec clip called " the Crying Publisher", use a lot of hard rock, show individual, dark shot, leaving a theater, scroll in parts of the his email, use the old film effects, then shots of bloodly newspapers,(publishers), being used to wrap body parts, which is shown later being pasted out at the Publisher's Christmas Party, or to the public with the newspaper.
farss wrote on 9/17/2004, 6:36 AM
We have a 'women' clinic here that always used to have a group of protesters outside until the clinic came up with the 'Sponsor a protester' campaign. Simple idea, for every day the protester is there you donate $1 to the clinic. They left pretty quick.
Sometimes a bit of lateral thinking works well. These guys are obviously not at the high end of the IQ range so it shouldn't be too hard to outsmart them without stooping to their level.
Former user wrote on 9/17/2004, 7:19 AM
This is just sad. It makes you wonder how people get this much hatred toward others.

Have you contacted their service provider, whoever is provided their webspace should be aware.

Dave T2
filmy wrote on 9/17/2004, 5:00 PM
>>>Have you contacted their service provider, whoever is provided their webspace should be aware.<<<

Yes, the studio did. No comment from them yet.
StefanS wrote on 9/17/2004, 6:36 PM
Sounds like they've given you great material for a movie - for free!!
mhbstevens wrote on 9/17/2004, 7:31 PM
Will you post this critique in full with all references AND full details of the film and where it can be seen.

Only them can we judge if the the critic is whako or just doing what crirics do.

Mike