Owledge Posted June 19, 2012 I think it was in the documentary "Outfoxed" where they stated the ridiculous truth/fact/lawyer view(?) that in order to shut down Bill O'Reilly's TV activities, the plaintiff would have to prove that he's doing what he does with clear intention, and not as a general outpour/expression of his personality, because in the latter case it would be much more difficult to hav success in court. Sounds crazy/sad, and maybe it's really just the opinion of the filmmakers' lawyer, but it could very well be true. Â But... Â In the movie "Iron Man 2", there is a piece of The O'Reilly Factor on a TV, staged according to the movie's plot, so it was specifically made by O'Reilly for the movie, and thus his ranting is totally deliberate, you could even say an act, because in the movie he badmouths the protagonist. That is evidence of him being guilty of public mass incitement and defamation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Immortal4life Posted June 19, 2012 No, because in the movie he is acting, and the movie isn't real. Even if he is acting similar to how he does irl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Protector Posted June 19, 2012 No, it's all a conspiracy to make America stupid AND IT'S WORKING!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Owledge Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) No, because in the movie he is acting, and the movie isn't real. Even if he is acting similar to how he does irl. You seem to have trouble seeing the obvious here, so let me elaborate: The moment you become fully aware of how you behave, you cannot claim delusion. And if you take this awareness a step further and accurately emulate it, it's not emulation anymore, but the real thing. It also means that you're not taking your behavior serious, which would be a requirement for you being non-aware of your behavior. What that lawyer was talking about was along the lines of "He doesn't know that he's an ass." But aparently he does, because he has no problem playing that same ass in a movie. You might not have seen the movie, but there is no difference at all between that scene and the real thing. Â For example: A choleric cannot play a choleric. A choleric gets overwhelmed by fits of rage. Once he can play that same choleric ... as himself(!), he is aware and in control of those emotions and thus an actor. Â Another example: (Hopefully) nobody would claim that Lewis Black is actually an angry guy. If he angrily said something on state that amounts of defamation/libel, his lawyer couldn't claim that he didn't know what he was doing because he was angry. Edited June 19, 2012 by Owledge Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokona Posted June 20, 2012 It would be fine if no one listened to the crap he spews. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
