Sir Sirius wrote:I don't know your legal system, but suing Moore for "invasion of privacy" when Nichols freely gave this interview in his own home sounds a bit odd. As does "intentional infliction of emotional distress", unless of course it can be shown that Moore was deliberately out to harm Nichols, which I doubt. To me it sounds like Nichols is crying, "Whaa-haa! Moore mislead me *sob*, he is so mean *sob*. Gimme loads of money, please, pretty please. *sob*"
Unfortunately for Mr. Nichols, Moore's attorneys will have the legal release form which Nichols
must have signed in order for his interview footage to be included in BFC, which demonstrates consent, so the invasion of privacy charge goes right out the window. And unless that form identifies Moore as representing anybody other than himself or can produce witnesses stating under oath that Moore lied about the purpose of the interview, then bang goes the fasle pretenses/misrepresentation charge as well. Since the movie is nowhere near about James Nichols specifically or has the Murrah bombing as its focus, and the Nichols interview takes up only a few minutes of footage in the entire film, it will be extremely difficult to make a deliberate intent to inflict harm charge fly, if not impossible.
And as for the libel, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that Michael Moore made the false accusation in
Bowling For Columbine that James Nichols is/was a terrorist or that he was complicit in the Murrah bombing, or crafted a deliberate impression of Nichols as a terrorist, then the charge cannot be sustained as a matter of fact, and in that event, the lawsuit sinks for lack of merit.