Damon v. Moore
36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2322, 520 F.3d 98, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5905 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a person's image or interview clip in a publication is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning if, when viewed in its full context, a reasonable viewer would not interpret the person's appearance as an endorsement of the publication's overall message, even if that message is contrary to the person's own views.
Facts:
- Sergeant Peter J. Damon, an Army Reserve Sergeant, was severely injured in Iraq on October 21, 2003, resulting in the loss of both of his arms.
- While recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Damon, though heavily sedated, agreed to an interview with Brian Williams of NBC News about a new pain-blocking treatment he was receiving.
- The NBC segment aired and included Damon discussing his pain, followed by Williams' narration stating that Damon and other wounded soldiers were, to a man, completely behind the war effort.
- Without Damon's consent, Michael Moore used a sixteen-second clip from the NBC interview in his documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
- The documentary had a strong anti-war and anti-Bush administration message.
- The clip of Damon showed him only describing his pain ('Like I still feel like I have hands... the pain is like my hands are being crushed in a vice').
- This clip was placed within a segment of the documentary that criticized the Bush administration's alleged mistreatment of soldiers and veterans.
- The documentary omitted the portion of the original NBC broadcast where Williams stated Damon's support for the war.
Procedural Posture:
- Sergeant Damon brought suit against Michael Moore and others in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all of Damon's claims.
- Damon, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the non-consensual use of a soldier's interview clip in an anti-war documentary, where the clip only shows the soldier discussing his physical pain, create a context that is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning under Massachusetts law?
Opinions:
Majority - Delgado-Colón, District Judge
No, the use of the soldier's interview clip is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning. To determine if a communication is defamatory, a court must conduct a threshold inquiry into whether a reasonable viewer would find it defamatory when viewed in its totality and proper context, not through a forced or strained interpretation. Here, Damon's clip itself contains no political statements; he only discusses his pain and treatment. While the documentary as a whole espouses an anti-war message, a reasonable viewer would not conclude that Damon shares that message simply by appearing. The film features many individuals, including President Bush, who obviously do not endorse Moore's views, so an appearance cannot be equated with endorsement. The only reasonable takeaway is that Damon is a wounded veteran courageously describing his injuries. Even when considered from the perspective of the military community, his dignified appearance would not be seen as disloyal, and therefore, it is not defamatory.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs in 'defamation by implication' cases, particularly those involving documentaries and other edited media. The court's emphasis on the 'reasonable viewer' and the 'totality of the circumstances' provides significant protection for filmmakers who use archival or third-party footage to construct a narrative. The ruling establishes that merely being featured in a controversial work is not enough to sustain a defamation claim, as the court presumes viewers can distinguish between a subject's appearance and their endorsement of the creator's message. This precedent makes it more difficult for individuals to claim their reputation was harmed by being placed in a context they find objectionable, so long as their own words or actions are not deceptively edited to create a false statement.
