Watchmen Author Alan Moore Lashes Out At Critics in "Final" Interview

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

RaikuFA:
Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

Unless I missed something in the article it's a reviewer considering legal action, because Moore made claims seriously damaging to the reviewers career (can't be trusted with advance copies).

RaikuFA:
Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

Moore. Moore Moore Moore. Why? Why, Moore? Why? You know better than anyone to just brush off the comments. But, I guess if what he says is true, that he's pretty much been bombarded with ignorant questions and statements, I don't blame him. Welp, everyone has their time to depart. This might just be his finale. Still, I'll support this crazy old rasputin impersonator to the ends of the world.

thebobmaster:

RaikuFA:
Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

It's libel if it's wrtten, it's slander if it's spoken.

Reed Spacer:

thebobmaster:

RaikuFA:
Wait, are they seriously gonna try and sue Moore because he told some people off?

That's fucking low.

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

It's libel if it's wrtten, it's slander if it's spoken.

I know. For some reason, I was thinking that this was a written transcription of a verbal interview, hence the confusion. So, it would be libel in this case.

"Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel."-J. Jonah Jameson

thebobmaster:

Reed Spacer:

thebobmaster:

No, they are going to try to sue Moore because he's spreading lies (at least, according to the lawsuit). That is legally libel. I think. Would this be slander or libel?

Either way, it's not "because he told some people off". Imagine if someone went around saying that Roger Ebert gave their movie two stars instead of three because they didn't pay him off as he requested. That's about the same level as Moore's accusation that the reviewer broke confidentiality when said reviewer, according to them, had permission.

It's libel if it's wrtten, it's slander if it's spoken.

I know. For some reason, I was thinking that this was a written transcription of a verbal interview, hence the confusion. So, it would be libel in this case.

"Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel."-J. Jonah Jameson

Hmmm? Which makes this an interesting question. Interviews are typically considered Slander. But this was a written interview where he wrote out responses to questions. This of course having no bearing on whether or not Moore is a batshit crazy asshole. It would just be an interesting legal question.

Alan Moore is demonstrably more intelligent then his critics, and he's also a nasty grumpy old man.

This is nothing that wasn't already on the public record.

I am interested in the case of the reviewer. I wonder if she really did have the permissions, like she said? More importantly, I want to know because critics and victim complexes come hand in hand. It'd be interesting if she really was guilty and merely trying to preserve her public image.

I'm saving Moore's text for later reading. Libel or no, someone with his penmanship is guaranteed to craft a hell of a roast.

Reed Spacer:
Alternate headline: "Moore throws classic hissy-fit; world sighs, rolls eyes while making universal 'jack-off' gesture; goes back to ignoring him."

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.