WWTBAM Bored

A new movie about a young Donald Trump entitled The Apprentice premiered at the Cannes Film Festival this week, and will play in U.S. theaters this fall. The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation. The movie stars Sebastian Stan (the Winter Soldier from the Marvel movies) as Trump and Jeremy Strong (from the TV series Succession) as Roy Cohn. In the movie, Trump rapes his first wife, Ivana. He also makes deals with mob bosses so he can proceed with construction of Trump Tower. The movie received an eight-minute standing ovation at its Cannes premiere, and will be at the top of Flock's "must-see" list this year.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

First Amendment.

(That is the same excuse that Flock, Spock, BiT, and tlynn use to defend Former Guy's defamatory statements over the past nine years, right?)

Pastor Fireball wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 9:11 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

First Amendment.

(That is the same excuse that Flock, Spock, BiT, and tlynn use to defend Former Guy's defamatory statements over the past nine years, right?)

Wrong, as usual.
If you can find any post where I have mentioned the 1st Amendment as a defense of Trump's,or anyone's derogatory or defamatory statements about anyone I'll donate $50 in your name to any verified charity of you choice.

This is BiT's only post on the issue of whether Trump's BS is protected by the First Amendment:

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:03 am

He doesn't realize it is a two way street. Its apparent he has not been on two way streets in a long time, if ever.

Much of what he says about people is libel, as much or more than what folks say about him is.

Pastor ought to contribute to a charity of BiT's choosing.

Pastor Fireball wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 9:11 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

First Amendment.

(That is the same excuse that Flock, Spock, BiT, and tlynn use to defend Former Guy's defamatory statements over the past nine years, right?)

Tell us you don't know how the law works without telling us. Of course, you've plenty of company in that boat.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

If they follow through with that threat, one of the defenses a smart defense lawyer will raise is that Donny's reputation is so bad that he's libel-proof.

But I'm pretty sure this is a bluff. They can't get a preliminary injunction -- it would be a prior restraint -- and if the case goes to trial, the defense gets to put Donny's entire reputation on trial in an effort to show that nothing anyone could possibly say about Donny the rapist could damage him worse than the truth already has. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Sun May 26, 2024 9:57 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

If they follow through with that threat, one of the defenses a smart defense lawyer will raise is that Donny's reputation is so bad that he's libel-proof.

But I'm pretty sure this is a bluff. They can't get a preliminary injunction -- it would be a prior restraint -- and if the case goes to trial, the defense gets to put Donny's entire reputation on trial in an effort to show that nothing anyone could possibly say about Donny the rapist could damage him worse than the truth already has. --Bob

The movie has a disclaimer that it's fictional, and I'm sure they've got some lawyers who carefully drafted the language of the disclaimer.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sun May 26, 2024 10:49 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Sun May 26, 2024 9:57 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:33 am

The Trump campaign has already announced it intends to sue the filmmakers for defamation.

If they follow through with that threat, one of the defenses a smart defense lawyer will raise is that Donny's reputation is so bad that he's libel-proof.

But I'm pretty sure this is a bluff. They can't get a preliminary injunction -- it would be a prior restraint -- and if the case goes to trial, the defense gets to put Donny's entire reputation on trial in an effort to show that nothing anyone could possibly say about Donny the rapist could damage him worse than the truth already has. --Bob

The movie has a disclaimer that it's fictional, and I'm sure they've got some lawyers who carefully drafted the language of the disclaimer.

I doubt the disclaimer will prevent either a lawsuit or (if it comes to that) liability. All the plaintiff needs to show is that a reasonable viewer of the movie would think it is making factual representations about Donny. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 2:03 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sun May 26, 2024 10:49 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Sun May 26, 2024 9:57 pm

If they follow through with that threat, one of the defenses a smart defense lawyer will raise is that Donny's reputation is so bad that he's libel-proof.

But I'm pretty sure this is a bluff. They can't get a preliminary injunction -- it would be a prior restraint -- and if the case goes to trial, the defense gets to put Donny's entire reputation on trial in an effort to show that nothing anyone could possibly say about Donny the rapist could damage him worse than the truth already has. --Bob

The movie has a disclaimer that it's fictional, and I'm sure they've got some lawyers who carefully drafted the language of the disclaimer.

I doubt the disclaimer will prevent either a lawsuit or (if it comes to that) liability. All the plaintiff needs to show is that a reasonable viewer of the movie would think it is making factual representations about Donny. --Bob

Then there’s that whole malice thing.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 11:44 am

Then there’s that whole malice thing.

"Malice" doesn't mean the same thing in a defamation context as in ordinary speech. It means making a statement that is known to be false or that is made with reckless disregard for the truth. Although traditional notions of malice often come into play, the legal term doesn't mean with a harmful or hateful intent. An example could be a newspaper like the National Enquirer spreading celebrity lies not because they wish that particular celebrity ill but because they know it will boost sales.

It means making a statement that is known to be false or that is made with reckless disregard for the truth.

Gee, then the whole democrat party is doomed.