Posted on 06/05/2016 9:38:55 AM PDT by rktman
What was your intention with inserting that pause?
You have Katie asking the group this question, Do you think people on the terror watch list should be allowed to own guns? Katies asking the question of the group, but as the filmmaker, I want to ask the question of the audience. So what I was thinking, my editor was thinking was we need to stop for a second, because the film moves along at a really fast clip. So youll see that throughout well stop down after something happens or when we present something. The terror watch list is a real pivotal feature in the film, as is the whole notion of background checks. So this felt like a really crucial time to stop down and allow the audience a moment to let that question sink in.
[ ]
Were you surprised to see this moment in the film singled out?
No, if they didnt find this, they would have found something else. Honestly, I think its interesting that theyre focusing on whats not in the film instead of what is in the film, because if they focused on what is in the film, it would threaten their livelihood. This is very textbook gun-lobby intimidation tactics, and I wont be intimidated.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
They're giving Couric every opportunity to back down, the defamation lawsuit and discovery that will now follow is going to soak her and that producer/editor with legal fees.
It sounds more like a `false light’ claim.
The Elements of False Light
“In a false light claim, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:
The defendant published some information about the plaintiff.
The information must portray the plaintiff in a false or misleading light.
The information is highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
The defendant must have published the information with reckless disregard as to its offensiveness.
“A false light claim is usually easier to bring than a defamation claim. Take, for example, a newspaper article about the issue of child molestation in certain churches. If the editor includes a photograph of an innocent priest who has not been accused of or otherwise associated with child molestation, the newspaper may be liable for false light - the inclusion of the photograph implies that the priest is involved in child molestation - but not for defamation, as there was no false statement made. In a defamation action, the newspaper-defendant would simply assert that no statement was actually made about the photographed priest and child molestation.”
The pathology of the left is not that different from serial killers. They never apologize either.
“Katie Couric was one of the extreme regulars on the jets flying out to Epsteins rape Island.”
First I’ve heard of that. It begs the question — Why?
Yes; but at least Goebbels had the decency to kill himself, his kids. and his wife.
Wish these people would show the same sense of decency, for themselves and all their like minded friends.
Decent to kill his kids?!?!?!? If you watched the movie "Downfall" (The one of the YouTube parodies), that scene was one of the most horrible things I've ever watched.
He is an inabler who will probably be the first on the chopping block when the muzzies gain control, a useful idiot
I know a lady who was seven years old, and played with the Goebbels’ children in the bunker. She remembers those final days well.
It is just part of their disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.