FMJeff
06-07-2007, 11:55 AM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0606071borat1.html
This brings up a larger issue that I must be discussed. The man stipulates two things in his complaint. Firstly, the production company used his likeness in a film without his permission and failed to compensate him for the revenue generated. This is arguable, albeit difficult considering the action took place on a public street.
The second issue, which I do take issue with, is the claim of undo stress caused by humiliation resulting from the man's appearance in the movie. I do not understand how someone can reasonably prove "humiliation" or any other kind of internal emotion. There is no meaningful standard for emotion at all. I thought this was covered in the People Vs. Larry Flynt. Clearly what happened here is the man was exposed as a coward, running around flailing his arms like the wimp he is resulting in his friends and associates losing respect for him...maybe cracking the occasional, embarrassing joke. When you set the precedent that it is ok to sue someone when your feelings get hurt, you open the gate to ambulance chasers forcing clients into meaningless lawsuits for compensation resulting from intangible damages.
It will effectively kill artistic expression in this country. What if you don't like a statue? Can you sue the artist for making you feel embarrassed? What if you a horror movie makes you cry in front of your business partners? Can you sue then?
What a pansy-ass country we have become.
This brings up a larger issue that I must be discussed. The man stipulates two things in his complaint. Firstly, the production company used his likeness in a film without his permission and failed to compensate him for the revenue generated. This is arguable, albeit difficult considering the action took place on a public street.
The second issue, which I do take issue with, is the claim of undo stress caused by humiliation resulting from the man's appearance in the movie. I do not understand how someone can reasonably prove "humiliation" or any other kind of internal emotion. There is no meaningful standard for emotion at all. I thought this was covered in the People Vs. Larry Flynt. Clearly what happened here is the man was exposed as a coward, running around flailing his arms like the wimp he is resulting in his friends and associates losing respect for him...maybe cracking the occasional, embarrassing joke. When you set the precedent that it is ok to sue someone when your feelings get hurt, you open the gate to ambulance chasers forcing clients into meaningless lawsuits for compensation resulting from intangible damages.
It will effectively kill artistic expression in this country. What if you don't like a statue? Can you sue the artist for making you feel embarrassed? What if you a horror movie makes you cry in front of your business partners? Can you sue then?
What a pansy-ass country we have become.