Review of "Sects" (Wednesday, March 30, 2004 NBC Episode)
Walt Parker
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The episode opened with a couple walking in a quiet park when a man
appeared to shoot himself. The man appeared to be a Richard Ransom,
with Ed calling a woman on his cell phone who then tells Ed he had
killed a woman (Mary Ann Miller, who was actually Delores Diamond) at a
hotel next to the park, with the man apparently the one who did it.
The man turned out to have nothing more than a concussion as he
appeared to pull away the gun when he was there. Joe and Ed are then
with Mrs. Ransom (Stacey), who said that Richard had been talking about
killing someone for months, in this case his mother, who was the leader
of a major cult called Children of the Divine. Like how Mrs. Ransom
then notes how the children of this cult had sex with each other while
their parents watched, and was anxious to get out, noting Richard
escaped at 19. She then noted that over six months, he had suddenly
gone into a tailspin, hitting rock bottom two weeks ago before his
killing a woman and shooting himself.
This cult was very rough, and at the travel agency where he worked, a
worker noted how hearing the voice of one caller about that time caused
him to suddenly hit rock bottom. It turned out that woman was named
Sunshine Porter who came to New York and was in a photo with Richard 13
years earlier in 1992, before in all likelyhood he left the cult. They
are talking with Stacey, who then notes how someone had been hanging up
after constantly calling her, with it turning out that Sunshine was
staying with the man who was calling, with it turning out that Sunshine
was actually Richard's sister, and he was called Daniel in the cult.
Anita then talks with Sunshine at the 2-7, who noted that the woman
killed was actually named Delores, who was their nanny and had sex with
Richard and Sunshine. It turned out Sunshine had called Richard to let
him know about their mother being in New York and trying to confront
her.
Shortly after, Richard admits to killing Delores, saying he was
willing to accept the death penalty and that Delores and the rest of
the cult deserved it. He then explains how bad the cult really was, and
Delores still "did not get it" in the eyes of Richard even when she was
dying. We then see Jack with Alexandra, who notes that Richard's
grandparents actually had custody of him, but his mother kidnapped him.
Like how after deciding to try to go after the mother, Alexandra is
talking with the lawyer for the cult, claiming that the cult had
cleaned up their act, and then deciding to have Sunshine work with Joe
and Ed to have her talk with her mother over what happened. That turned
out to be a trap to have Mrs. Shelby (the mother played by Deborah
Hedwall) arrested for kidnapping Richard 20 years earlier for the basis
of having sex. After arguments in court, bail is set at $2 million.
Seeing the episode to this point, I was wondering why this was not
done as a crossover with "SVU", as I think it would have been very
interesting if for this instance we saw Jack prosecuting with Casey and
Alexandra both serving as co-second chairs.
Love how we see Jack and Alexandra with Mrs. Shelby and her attorney
(Lionel Granger, played by David Thorton), with the mother making
excuses for how her children behaved before Jack and Alexandra talked
with Arthur, with Jack noting Mrs. Shelby ordered every copy of a book
concerning raising kids her way burned.
We then see Alexandra with Sunshine, and Sunshine noted she was
pressured to have sex, also noting that Richard (Daniel) had to go to a
"victory camp" where he was tourtured, also noting they had another
brother David who died a year earlier from a drug overdose, that
Richard then explains did happen. Alexandra then explains to Richard
that he could be looked at as vindictive before Alexandra says she's
"cautiously optomistic" about Sunshine.
We then see Sunshine testifying as to what happened at the cult,
noting that Richard had a relationship with Delores until she was 17,
and that Sunshine would sometimes participate, encouraged by her and
Richard's mother. In cross, Sunshine noted about how Richard was in
"victory camp", noting he was angry when he returned from there,
especially at his mother. Sunshine noted how she was upset that Richard
left at 18. Sunshine then held up well in cross, saying her mother
encouraged him. Lionel then shows Sunshine a document with testimony
made to Mexican authorities, which showed that Sunshine made up the
relationship with her brother because she was angry that Richard was
sent away. The charges were then dissmissed against Mrs. Shelby for
kidnapping, but Jack then decides to go after her for the murder of her
other son, David.
Alexandra is then with an FBI Agent who is able to get Alexandra a
photocopy of a manuscript that shows what Mrs. Shelby encouraged, also
noting David died from an overdose of qualudes that belonged to her
mother. At trial after Mrs. Shelby was arrested again, Richard
testifies how "The Book of Daniel" encouraged sex at the time, noting
he had sex with Delores Diamond and was awaiting sentencing for her
murder, which he did after she refused to tell Richard where he was,
wanting to kill her mother as well for killing David, feeling guilty
for not taking David with him when he fled the cult. He then said how
he was given many of the same drugs as David before their parents had
sex with their kids. In cross, Lionel goes after David, noting he
stabbed Delores five times and slashing her throat. Lionel then tries
to get Richard to say he concocted the whole story to get a lighter
sentence for Delores' murder, only he said no.
Mrs. Shelby then claims the book that the prosecutors got was a
forgery that was done to discredit Mrs. Shelby's cult that in her eyes
was going against the establishment, with Mrs. Shelby saying her kids
have been manipulated by others. Jack then goes after Mrs. Shelby in
cross, with her denying that she gave her kids drugs, claiming all of
the testimony of ex-members of the cult was vindictive, with Mrs.
Shelby claiming they had many when it actually was less than 10,000,
her then claiming there was a conspiracy against her. Mrs. Shelby then
tries to put herself in the company of the "greats of god", only for
her it was her downfall as she was found guilty of second degree
murder, which was pretty obvious.
Alexandra looks very puzzled after the testimony and looked sick at
the end of what was another great episode.
Walt
Nightspirit
Did anyone else find the defense attorney voice annoying?
--
---
Have Fun,
Night Spirit
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hipdale2/Riverton_Common.HTML
BSG Blog: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cylon12/
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and quite
good with ketchup.
ienj...@yahoo.com
A compelling episode. I think they should have gotten a name star for
this episode. Nice to have a good L&O episode in an up and down season.
ARoberts
> Did anyone else find the defense attorney voice annoying?
Worth slapping...
William December Starr
"Walt Parker" <Free...@juno.com> said:
> Alexandra is then with an FBI Agent who is able to get
And it was at about then that I wished I had something soft at
hand to throw at my television set. McCoy goes to trial on
kidnapping charges against Shelby, loses, decides to go after her
again for a different crime, and *then* says "We'd better find
out what we're up against. Go see what the FBI has to say about
this cult"? The sheer, raw STUPID of his not having done that at
the start of his first case was just... mind-boggling. That
McCoy -- excuse me, McCoy plus Branch plus Borgia, not to mention
the police who investigated the initial crime -- would ALL have
failed to think of that as practically a first step seems to me
to be just preposterous.
Terrible, terrible writing.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Jeff Gersten
>Terrible, terrible writing.
And what about the problem of did either the alleged kidnapping or the
alleged murder have any connection to NY county?
It was just another in a long line of L&O cases where a defendant is
convicted because after being cross examined, he or she is extremely
unlikeable.
Rick and Sue Deschene
I didn't catch that. But what struck me was the *tone* of the writing.
Very strident. It seems like over the past few years we've been getting
more and more of this type of episode: It's as if the writers are sying,
"We're going to take the most disgusting crimes we can think of. And,
just in case the audience isn't disgusted enough, we're going to push it
way over the top and make it really DRAMATIC to make sure they get it."
It's what used to bug me about "SVU," and still bugs me about "CI." I'm
trying to imagine a story like last night's being portrayed in this same
heavy-handed manner, say, during Stone's tenure. I just can't see it.
I vastly prefer the more subtle approach of earlier seasons. But it's as
if the powers-that-be feel they've done all that can possibly done with
this series, and now, to get the audience's attention, they have to work
too hard. It feels frantic, and a little desperate. Which is too bad.
Sue
wps
@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net:
>
> And what about the problem of did either the alleged kidnapping or the
> alleged murder have any connection to NY county?
I beleived they mentiond that Daniel was living with his grandparents in
NYC when Mother abducted him to Mexico. And the younger brother died of a
overdose when he was in NYC.
ARoberts
"Rick and Sue Deschene" <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote in message
news:3d310$424c0733$40ebc98d$67...@ripnet.allthenewsgroups.com...
I agree. The emphasis seems to be on shock value rather than intrigue and
mystery. The CSI series of shows is an example of shows that revels in
close-up, computer-generated gore (and squishing sound effects, yet), as a
substitute for story-telling. I would hate the competitive pressures of
sensationalism to drive L&O more toward that model.
Rick and Sue Deschene
gives us a sort of "how-to" forensics procedural--fictional, I
know--which I find intriguing. And I feel that by and large, those
stories are well-written and well-acted. Not always completely factual .
. . but then it *is* fiction, after all.
I don't mind what "CSI" does at all. But that's that show's style. "Law
& Order" has its own style, with which it has been successful for many
years. If the writers are trying to replicate the style of other shows,
then IMO they're making a huge mistake, because they're forgetting "who
brung 'em," as the saying goes. The formula for "Law & Order" is what
its fans want. If we want the "CSI" formula, we'll watch that show.
We're not looking for yet another "CSI" clone (or "The Practice," or
"NYPD Blue," or any other show) in "Law & Order."
Sue
Diva Phyllis
were obviously traumatized by what their mother and the rest of the cult
put them through.
I think the girl who played Sunshine was on an eisode of CI where she
played a nanny who murdered her employer and then got her sister to work
as their nanny.
I'm starting to like Dennis Farina a little better now, too. Phyllis
Diva Phyllis
><Thu, Mar 31, 2005, 4:05am (EST+5) From:
>hipd...@removethisearthlink.net
>(Nightspirit)wrote
>voice annoying?>
Yes, very. Phyllis
Rick and Sue Deschene
<snip>
> I think the girl who played Sunshine was on an eisode of CI where she
> played a nanny who murdered her employer and then got her sister to work
> as their nanny.
I remember that episode, but had forgotten about the actress. And,
according to TV Tome, you're right (she's also appeared in two other
"Law & Order" episodes):
Merritt Wever
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/PersonDetail/personid-28635
Sue
IndyHazle
in the Sunday LA TImes there was an article on the Cult this was based
on.
Dick Wolf really ripped this one from the headlines too.,
I am trying to remember if the young man at the center of the cult's
worship was actually Daniel or Robert. He did kill his nanny and then
himself., They did have a secret book
The founder was a man. A sixties beatnick free love type who died
years ago.
Does anyone know about this story?
David / Amicus
Sparky Spartacus
Sounds a lot like the Mansion family, except Charlie is still among the
living.
Nightspirit
> IndyHazle wrote:
>> The main reason this episode stood out for me is that about 1 month
>> based on.
>> Dick Wolf really ripped this one from the headlines too.,
>>
>> I am trying to remember if the young man at the center of the
>> cult's
>> worship was actually Daniel or Robert. He did kill his nanny and
>> then himself., They did have a secret book
>>
>> years ago.
>> Does anyone know about this story?
>
> Sounds a lot like the Mansion family, except Charlie is still among
> the living.
David Berg and The Children of God. He would send to the girls out
recruit by something called flirty fishing aka using sex.
Dawnie
>A compelling episode. I think they should have gotten a name star for
>this episode.
Mrs. Shelby reminded me too much of Marion Ross (the mother from Happy
Days.) I found that really distracting.
Dawnie
<rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>It's as if the writers are sying,
>"We're going to take the most disgusting crimes we can think of. And,
>just in case the audience isn't disgusted enough, we're going to push it
>way over the top and make it really DRAMATIC to make sure they get it."
Do you think it could possibly be because the RFTH storylines are more
outrageous or sensational today than all those years ago? And that it
gets reflected in the tone of the story?
>I vastly prefer the more subtle approach of earlier seasons. But it's as
>if the powers-that-be feel they've done all that can possibly done with
>this series, and now, to get the audience's attention, they have to work
>too hard. It feels frantic, and a little desperate. Which is too bad.
Now that you mention it, it does feel that way. Either that, or I'm
just being influenced by the "yet another plot twist" promos.
Rick and Sue Deschene
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:20:14 -0500, Rick and Sue Deschene
> <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's as if the writers are sying,
>>"We're going to take the most disgusting crimes we can think of. And,
>>just in case the audience isn't disgusted enough, we're going to push it
>>way over the top and make it really DRAMATIC to make sure they get it."
>
>
> Do you think it could possibly be because the RFTH storylines are more
> outrageous or sensational today than all those years ago?
Sorry, I'm not good with abbreviations. I can't answer your question
till I know what "RFTH" stands for.
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
Ah, I just figured it out: "Ripped from the Headlines." See, that's
where I think they made their first mistake. They painted themselves
into a corner by taking the most DRAMATIC stories they could find from
the news. But, since their audience already knows all there is to know
about these casees, then they have to make them even more DRAMATIC. IMO,
it's a flawed approach to a series that used to be way better than that.
Sue
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
Here's what I don't get: Why they have to put that disclaimer about
"While inspired by a true event, this is not based on a true event" or
whatever the hell it says. Shouldn't this be obvious? If nothing else,
the names are different...
David Johnston
That disclaimer isn't for the viewing audience's benefit. It's for
the lawyers. It is designed to insulate them against actions for
slander. (Or is it libel when it's a script?)
David Johnston
<hipd...@removethisearthlink.net> wrote:
>Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>> IndyHazle wrote:
>>> The main reason this episode stood out for me is that about 1 month
>>> ago in the Sunday LA Times there was an article on the Cult this
>>> was
>>> based on.
>>> Dick Wolf really ripped this one from the headlines too.,
>>>
>>> I am trying to remember if the young man at the center of the
>>> cult's
>>> worship was actually Daniel or Robert. He did kill his nanny and
>>> then himself., They did have a secret book
>>>
>>> The founder was a man. A sixties beatnik free love type who died
>>> years ago.
>>> Does anyone know about this story?
>>
>> Sounds a lot like the Mansion family, except Charlie is still among
>> the living.
>
>David Berg and The Children of God. He would send to the girls out
>recruit by something called flirty fishing aka using sex.
There really don't seem to be many female cult founders, contrary to
the episode.
Rick and Sue Deschene
Libel, I would think, since it's originally written in a script. As far
as I know, the actors aren't improvising their own thoughts; they're
saying the lines they're given.
Sue
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
And if it's not for the viewers, why do they put it out there in big
letters at the beginning of the episode?
Rick and Sue Deschene
It would be difficult to prove, that's for sure. My AP Stylebook defines
libel (which is written; slander is spoken) as "injury to reputation."
However, this is applied to information about a *real* person. So I
would think that's the whole point of that opening disclaimer, to
prevent anyone from making an inference to a real person . . . even if
it's pretty obvious who certain characters are based on. They're still
fictional, and so would be exempt from slander/libel laws.
Sue
David Johnston
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <424e6506...@news.telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:39:55 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
>> <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bc351$424ebb41$40ebc3bd$12...@ripnet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
>> >Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ah, I just figured it out: "Ripped from the Headlines." See, that's
>> >> where I think they made their first mistake. They painted themselves
>> >> into a corner by taking the most DRAMATIC stories they could find from
>> >> the news. But, since their audience already knows all there is to know
>> >> about these casees, then they have to make them even more DRAMATIC. IMO,
>> >> it's a flawed approach to a series that used to be way better than that.
>> >
>> >Here's what I don't get: Why they have to put that disclaimer about
>> >"While inspired by a true event, this is not based on a true event" or
>> >whatever the hell it says. Shouldn't this be obvious?
>>
>> That disclaimer isn't for the viewing audience's benefit. It's for
>> the lawyers. It is designed to insulate them against actions for
>> slander. (Or is it libel when it's a script?)
>
>How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
they change his name?
>
>And if it's not for the viewers, why do they put it out there in big
>letters at the beginning of the episode?
Because they have to tell the viewers that it is fictional to keep the
lawyers off their backs.
Michael Black
No.
Someone mentioned the "Children of God" and checking some details
it's very clearly that cult, right down to fine details like a book
about children and sex that was later destroyed.
There was no parallel between the epsiode and Manson. There's was
a short lived cult, who's real claim to fame was killing some famous
people. No religious basis, little time for kids to grow up, no
pseudo-legitimacy to it.
Michael
Rick and Sue Deschene
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:01:46 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
> <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <424e6506...@news.telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
>><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:39:55 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
>>><n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <bc351$424ebb41$40ebc3bd$12...@ripnet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
>>>>Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, I just figured it out: "Ripped from the Headlines." See, that's
>>>>>where I think they made their first mistake. They painted themselves
>>>>>into a corner by taking the most DRAMATIC stories they could find from
>>>>>the news. But, since their audience already knows all there is to know
>>>>>about these casees, then they have to make them even more DRAMATIC. IMO,
>>>>>it's a flawed approach to a series that used to be way better than that.
>>>>
>>>>Here's what I don't get: Why they have to put that disclaimer about
>>>>"While inspired by a true event, this is not based on a true event" or
>>>>whatever the hell it says. Shouldn't this be obvious?
>>>
>>>That disclaimer isn't for the viewing audience's benefit. It's for
>>>the lawyers. It is designed to insulate them against actions for
>>>slander. (Or is it libel when it's a script?)
>>
>>How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>
>
> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
> they change his name?
>
>
off-limits to libel/slander prosecution. But I think that's because
satire is usually so over-the-top that it obviously cannot be true, so
the person portrayed in a satirical work can't really claim defamation,
since no one would believe it to be true about them.
But I was reading this Writer's Market article, and it looks like there
is a precedent:
Libel
http://www.writersmarket.com/wmns/encyclopedia/L.asp#607
"Another suit, dealing with fiction, was brought against novelist Gwen
Davis Mitchell and Doubleday & Co., Inc. The plaintiff, Paul Bindrim,
contended that Mitchell's novel Touching libeled him through the
portrayal of a character who was based on him. He was awarded $75,000 in
damages."
>>And if it's not for the viewers, why do they put it out there in big
>>letters at the beginning of the episode?
>
>
> Because they have to tell the viewers that it is fictional to keep the
> lawyers off their backs.
>
Well, I'm not entirely convinced that saying it isn't so doesn't make it
so, but I guess that's the intent.
Sue
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>
> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
> they change his name?
If they don't call him Kobe, it logically is not Kobe. It's a fictional
character. Based on a real person, maybe, but still fictional.
>
> >
> >And if it's not for the viewers, why do they put it out there in big
> >letters at the beginning of the episode?
>
> Because they have to tell the viewers that it is fictional to keep the
> lawyers off their backs.
Stupid lawyers should realize that it's OBVIOUSLY fiction.
David / Amicus
the episode.>>
Ann Lee of the Shakers
Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science
Ellen Gould White of the 7th Day Adventists
Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the Church Universal and Triumphant
ARoberts
"Keeper of the Purple Twilight" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:020420051440085975%n...@spam.invalid...
What lawyers realize and what they litigate over are two different things.
It's time for tort reform.
David Johnston
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <424e827a...@news.telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> >How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>>
>> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
>> they change his name?
>
>If they don't call him Kobe, it logically is not Kobe.
Really. Let's try that the other way as long as we are being
"logical". What if an author uses the name "David Johnston" for his
character, who is, let's say, a sexual predator. Am I justified in
lassuming that because the author used my name he IS talking
about me?
Sparky Spartacus
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:01:46 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
> <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <424e6506...@news.telusplanet.net>, David Johnston
>><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:39:55 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
>>><n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <bc351$424ebb41$40ebc3bd$12...@ripnet.allthenewsgroups.com>,
>>>>Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, I just figured it out: "Ripped from the Headlines." See, that's
>>>>>where I think they made their first mistake. They painted themselves
>>>>>into a corner by taking the most DRAMATIC stories they could find from
>>>>>the news. But, since their audience already knows all there is to know
>>>>>about these casees, then they have to make them even more DRAMATIC. IMO,
>>>>>it's a flawed approach to a series that used to be way better than that.
>>>>
>>>>Here's what I don't get: Why they have to put that disclaimer about
>>>>"While inspired by a true event, this is not based on a true event" or
>>>>whatever the hell it says. Shouldn't this be obvious?
>>>
>>>That disclaimer isn't for the viewing audience's benefit. It's for
>>>the lawyers. It is designed to insulate them against actions for
>>>slander. (Or is it libel when it's a script?)
>>
>>How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>
>
> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
> they change his name?
Yes, if it were a novel it would be called a "roman a clef".
Sparky Spartacus
> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
>> IndyHazle wrote:
>>
>>> The main reason this episode stood out for me is that about 1 month
>>> ago in the Sunday LA Times there was an article on the Cult this was
>>> based on.
>>> Dick Wolf really ripped this one from the headlines too.,
>>>
>>> I am trying to remember if the young man at the center of the cult's
>>> worship was actually Daniel or Robert. He did kill his nanny and
>>> then himself., They did have a secret book
>>>
>>> The founder was a man. A sixties beatnik free love type who died
>>> years ago.
>>> Does anyone know about this story?
>>
>>
>> Sounds a lot like the Mansion family, except Charlie is still among
>> the living.
>
>
> David Berg and The Children of God. He would send to the girls out
> recruit by something called flirty fishing aka using sex.
Just like Charlie!
Sparky Spartacus
> Sparky Spartacus (Spa...@spartacus.galaxy.org) writes:
>
>>IndyHazle wrote:
>>
>>>The main reason this episode stood out for me is that about 1 month ago
>>>in the Sunday LA TImes there was an article on the Cult this was based
>>>on.
>>>Dick Wolf really ripped this one from the headlines too.,
>>>
>>>I am trying to remember if the young man at the center of the cult's
>>>worship was actually Daniel or Robert. He did kill his nanny and then
>>>himself., They did have a secret book
>>>
>>>The founder was a man. A sixties beatnick free love type who died
>>>years ago.
>>>Does anyone know about this story?
>>
>>Sounds a lot like the Mansion family, except Charlie is still among the
>>living.
>
> No.
>
> Someone mentioned the "Children of God" and checking some details
> it's very clearly that cult, right down to fine details like a book
> about children and sex that was later destroyed.
>
> There was no parallel between the epsiode and Manson.
Dude, imagine a smiley if that makes it easier. Read the part sbove
about the "sixties beatnick (sic)" immediately before my comment
concerning Manson.
David Johnston
<Spa...@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote:
>>>How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>>
>>
>> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
>> they change his name?
>
>Yes, if it were a novel it would be called a "roman a clef".
And people have been successfully sued for having their character
maligned in such a novel.
William December Starr
"ARoberts" <a-rob...@comcast.net> said:
>>> Because they have to tell the viewers that it is fictional to
>>> keep the lawyers off their backs.
>>
>> Stupid lawyers should realize that it's OBVIOUSLY fiction.
>
> What lawyers realize and what they litigate over are two different
> things.
As well they should be.
> It's time for tort reform.
"Tort reform" is a political advertising term that has no real
meaning beyond "change." You tell me what _particular_ changes you
want to the tort system, and I'll tell you whether I think it's
time for them.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Rich Rostrom
>David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> >How can it be slander if the characters are fictional?
>>
>> But is a thinly disguised Kobe Bryant really fictional just because
>> they change his name?
>
>If they don't call him Kobe, it logically is not Kobe. It's a fictional
>character. Based on a real person, maybe, but still fictional.
So if I was to write a novel about a baseball player who has
been the shortstop for the NY Yankees since 1995, who is
6' 3", 195, white, right handed, 30 years old, from
Pequannock, NJ, and unmarried, who lives at Trump World
Plaza during the season and in Tampa in the winter, and
and I depict this man as a sexual sadist who uses money,
celebrity, and drugs to entrap teenage girls for rape
and torture, has organized-crime connections which he
uses to silence his victims through intimidation, and
has had girls kidnapped and forcibly aborted to evade
paternity suits...
It's OK if the character's name is "Derek Jever".
Rrriiight.
No, the law is not always an ass. Libel in the form
of minimally disguised fiction has been recognized
for many years.
--
Nothing which was ever expressed originally in the English language resembles,
except in the most distant way, the thought of Plotinus, or Hegel, or Foucault.
I take this to be enormously to the credit of our language. -- David Stove
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<rrostrom.21stcentury-...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> So if I was to write a novel about a baseball player who has
> been the shortstop for the NY Yankees since 1995, who is
> 6' 3", 195, white, right handed, 30 years old, from
> Pequannock, NJ, and unmarried, who lives at Trump World
> Plaza during the season and in Tampa in the winter, and
> and I depict this man as a sexual sadist who uses money,
> celebrity, and drugs to entrap teenage girls for rape
> and torture, has organized-crime connections which he
> uses to silence his victims through intimidation, and
> has had girls kidnapped and forcibly aborted to evade
> paternity suits...
>
> It's OK if the character's name is "Derek Jever".
>
> Rrriiight.
Well, they wouldn't get THAT close, but if they called him Billy-Bob
Pigsknuckle IV, that would be different enough, wouldn't it?
Rich Rostrom
>>
>> It's OK if the character's name is "Derek Jever".
>>
>> Rrriiight.
>
>Well, they wouldn't get THAT close, but if they called him Billy-Bob
>Pigsknuckle IV, that would be different enough, wouldn't it?
No. The criteria, AFAIK, are whether the 'fictional character'
is easily identifiable with a real person and whether the
misbehavior of the fictional character could be plausibly
ascribed to that person.
If I write of former US President Henry Barclay, Democrat
ex-governor of Mississippi, with an embarrassing sister
and family cotton business, who served in the 1970s, when
a major oil exporting country was taken over by Moslem
fanatics, and assert that in return for favors to an oil
company controlled by his cronies, President Baxter connived
at the Islamist takeover and deliberately ordered the State
Department to issue denunciations of the Sultan's government
in coordination with the Islamist rebellion, Jimmy Carter
might have a libel action.
A disclaimer of 'no intended resemblance' would give me
cover though.
OTOH, if I write of Senator Tom Finnerty, alcoholic Democrat
from Massachusetts, who murdered an elderly campaign worker
because she had learned about payoffs he took for a key
Senate vote - Ted Kennedy's got no case, because it's certain
he never took a cash bribe in his life, being mega-rich.
Sparky Spartacus
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>It's OK if the character's name is "Derek Jever".
>>>
>>>Rrriiight.
>>
>>Well, they wouldn't get THAT close, but if they called him Billy-Bob
>>Pigsknuckle IV, that would be different enough, wouldn't it?
>
>
> No. The criteria, AFAIK, are whether the 'fictional character'
> is easily identifiable with a real person and whether the
> misbehavior of the fictional character could be plausibly
> ascribed to that person.
>
> If I write of former US President Henry Barclay, Democrat
> ex-governor of Mississippi, with an embarrassing sister
> and family cotton business, who served in the 1970s, when
> a major oil exporting country was taken over by Moslem
> fanatics, and assert that in return for favors to an oil
> company controlled by his cronies, President Baxter connived
> at the Islamist takeover and deliberately ordered the State
> Department to issue denunciations of the Sultan's government
> in coordination with the Islamist rebellion, Jimmy Carter
> might have a libel action.
Doubt it, he's a public figure, so I believe you can accuse him by name
of having sex with barnyard animals and there's nothing he can do about it.