I hate to think what this says about Americans...

[sam i am]

...but it's probably all too true. We're WAY to friggin a litigious society.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_en_mo/film_borat_lawsuit_7

[abcdefz]

Are you kidding?

If the claims are true, they've got a genuine beef.

The Borat folks misrepresented themselves and their business AND got the guys drunk before producing a legal contract, which they also misrepresnted. Then the people were coaxed into a performance which was then distributed internationally as a factual event for, in part, the purpose of defaming the guys and humiliating them.

Yeah, I don't think you can get people to necessarily say things they don't believe just because they're drunk, Mr. Gibson, but this blatant, patent misrepresentation and manipulation is definitely suit-worthy. Surprised it took this long.

[sam i am]

^^^^

You really believe that, huh?

Well....all I've got to say is that it's a COMEDIC movie. Not reality....not a documentary.

Lighten up and have a sense of humor, why don't ya?

[abcdefz]

Notice I said "if the claims are true."

But, yeah -- these guys aren't the first ones to complain about the way the guy gets his interviews. He's worse than Michael Moore.

Just because it's a comedy doesn't excuse anything. That'd be a nice argument to try in court, though.

"Jurors -- have you no sense of humor? Of COURSE it's illegal to coax someone to sign a document by imbibing them with alcohol! But it was all in the service of comedy, you see, so I am CONFIDENT you will find the defendant not guilty...."

[sam i am]

^^^

The interesting thing you said there was "coax."

Like those guys wouldn't have been drinking anyway?

Please.

[abcdefz]

Thing thing is, Cohan has his agenda. He knows what he wants to get on film, and that if he tries to arrange his scenario in a straightforward, honest manner, he generally won't get what he wants. So he misrepresents himself or manipulates the subject or even, if this case proves to be true, intoxicates them to get the effect he desires. But all of THAT, of course, is edited out of his "document," because exposing himself as a shitty, unprofessional person isn't what he's after.

Yeah -- from what I've read, there's some genuinely disturbing stuff about other people's behavior in there which doesn't sound like he had to do too much to provoke. But in cases like this one (again -- IF TRUE), he has clearly warped the circumstance to achieve his ends.

Let's put it this way: if that contract had been for the sale of a car, it wouldn't hold water whatsoever. It was pretty surely obtained through illegal means, and that ain't laudible.

[sam i am]

The only illegal means you're quoting, as well as the "victims," is that they signed the document while intoxicated.

Now, that may invalidate their signatures, and possibly cause the editing of the film (eventually), but by that time the movie will already have made millions and the DVD will be out for all to see.

Looks like an attempt to extort some money rather than a true attempt to right a wrong, IMHO.

[King PSYZ]

well can you blame them? they're basically actors in a hugely sucessful movie and of course they should be paid as such.

if nothing else they should have gone to all of these people and retained release forms and revealed the real motive afterwards,

[Echewta]

I think its a great thing about america. We are lucky enough to have courts where we can bring almost anything for a trial to descide which they can do by reviewing the case and throwing it out if its lame.

I think we should be more concered with the amount of money and time that are given to public defenders etc. Courts should be fair for all, not for the few.

Plus, with certain industries in the pockets of goverment, they are writing laws were you can't sue a business? Thats crazy.

ahh law.

[STANKY808]

I can't find a link for it now, but I remember reading that corporations suing each other accounted for far more of the court's time (and therefore money) than individuals suing corporations.

I mean if the judicial system were to turn to a more restorative model then perhaps fewer people would find a need to sue. The all or nothing nature of the current legal system encourages this kind of behaviour IMO.

[QueenAdrock]

You know they wouldn't give a shit if they weren't being hassled by people for being racist pricks. They gotta be getting flack from everyone that's seen the movie and recognizes them. However, if they were just normally drunk and appeared like sloshy dumb guys, they'd be like "HAHA! LOOK! I'M DRUNK AND I'M IN A MOVIE! 15 MINUTES OF FAME, SWEET!" And everyone would be like "HA! You're that dude from the movie! Awesome!" But that wasn't the case. They came off as pricks, which I don't doubt they are. I know their type, after a few drinks whatever is on their mind comes out their mouths. And it must be coming back to SERIOUSLY bite them in the ass now, and now they want money just because everyone knows they're assholes now.

[befsquire]

I think we should be more concered with the amount of money and time that are given to public defenders etc. Courts should be fair for all, not for the few.
thank you from all PDs, and from state attorneys (part of the "etc.", i presume).

i'm apparently hijacking threads right now for my own agenda, so here goes:

when PDs and ASAs (assistant state attorneys) are underpaid, justice is denied to both criminal defendants and victims. i have had many clients where i am their third or fourth PD. PDs offices switch attorneys around from division to division either because of a shortage in one division, or promotion, someone leaves the office, or whatever. this is frustrating for clients because they get tired of repeating themselves to a new attorney. but this is ok because courts have held that the person is represented by the office, not a particular attorney.

on the other side of the fence, victims are tired of explaining themselves to each new ASA that ends up with their case. further, they put brand new ASAs in charge of cases they really shouldn't have, and their inexperience can cause a case that should have been a conviction to result in an acquittal.

but neither office can keep good people because the pay is low and student loan debt is high. a recent news article stated the turnover rate for our county, in both offices, is around 45%. that's obnoxiously high.

legislators in florida repeatedly strike down any sort of loan repayment assistance program. and it sucks. so, only those of us who are diehard believers in the constitution remain in either office, and we all become more saddened by the day, knowing we'll never be able to purchase a home, buy our children braces, save for our children's college educations, etc.

want justice? pay your public servants. all of them -- this includes the police force, who get paid just as shitty for putting their lives on the lines, and teachers, who can possibly keep some kids from entering the system if they only had the budget to do it and the pay to keep the good teachers in the classroom.

[Bob]

legislators in florida repeatedly strike down any sort of loan repayment assistance program. and it sucks. so, only those of us who are diehard believers in the constitution remain in either office, and we all become more saddened by the day, knowing we'll never be able to purchase a home, buy our children braces, save for our children's college educations, etc.

that's why when i'm done, i'm working for walmart!

[Documad]

This whole thing was surprising to me, because when I saw the movie, I was sure that this scene and the Jewish B&B were both faked. Those were the two scenes that I didn't like at all.

I thought most of the rest of the movie was true, and was funnier as a result.

Now that I know the frat boy part was true, it's funnier.

[hellojello]

nevermind.

[DroppinScience]

This whole thing was surprising to me, because when I saw the movie, I was sure that this scene and the Jewish B&B were both faked. Those were the two scenes that I didn't like at all.

I thought most of the rest of the movie was true, and was funnier as a result.

Now that I know the frat boy part was true, it's funnier.

Do we have any word on the Bed & Breakfast people? The fratboys came off as pretty sincere, I gathered. I'm willing to bet that when those guys get drunk, they say stupid crap like that all the time. It's just the first time some guys filming a movie captured it for all the world to see.

[Ali]

how do you 'get' a frat boy drunk?

I hear they are pretty much drunk all the time.

[Qdrop]

they knew they were being filmed before the drinks started flowing, regardless of what they thought they were being filmed for.

if they were concerned about thier possible appearance on film they should have either 1.) not gotten drunk, or 2.) declined to allow him to film them.

but let's get all this legal shit off to the side, for a minute...
these were a couple of asshole frat pricks, who wanted to be "the cool drunk guys on camera", got drunk (probably not a rare thing for them), and said stupid shit on camera.

The lawsuit claims that in October 2005, a production crew took the students to a bar to drink and "loosen up" before participating in what they were told would be a documentary to be shown outside of the United States.
so as long as it was shown outside the US, they wouldn't care?

"They were induced to agree to participate and were told the name of the fraternity and the name of their school wouldn't be used," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Olivier Taillieu. prove it.

"They were put into an RV and were made to believe they were picking up Borat the hitchhiker
so?

After a bout of heavy drinking, the plaintiffs signed a release form they were told "had something to do with reliability issues with being in the RV," Taillieu said. first, prove that was what was said to them.
second, before the drinking ensued or any papers were signed....they willingly got on that bus to go to a bar, get drunk, and be filmed.


had it been shown in another country, they wouldn't give a shit...but now that other americans are seeing it...oh oh...how embarrassing....must sue...must sue...

[sam i am]

^^^^

Well said, Q.

My points exactly...just with more "Q" style!:)

[QueenAdrock]

If they signed a release that gives them permission to use them for their film, it doesn't matter WHAT the fratboys say. People can tell you anything. I know to read the fine print and never take anyone's word, be it a cell phone company or credit card or anything. If you're signing something, you better ask for a copy and actually read the damn thing. Even if I was plastered, if I was told that I'd be on camera and then they had me SIGN something, I'd read the fucking thing.

If what they claim is true (when there is no evidence it is), it is skeezy of Cohen and crew to do what they did. However, more to blame is the individual who could have said no to being on film in the first place, and could have said no to alcohol and could have said no to signing papers (if they were too drunk to read and understand them, just stay away from signing it you dumbasses). Their defense seems to be "We've been made assholes and it's everyone's fault but ours!"(n)