Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwistedVisions" data-source="post: 561775" data-attributes="member: 554844">Even if it was labeled a &quot;documentary&quot; if in fact it was slander and was mislabeled then mcdonalds could have sued. I mean in the movie the guy tried to set up an appointment to see a mcdonalds ceo which if they would have gone to this interview on his dvd then they could set the facts straight if they were false. What happened though? Well they didn&#039;t ever set up an interview because mcdonalds avoided him. I personally believe that it be difficult for mcdonalds to set up a slander lawsuit for many reasons.1) He has 3 medical doctors that aren&#039;t biased and would testify that the information in the movie was indeed fact and not bullshit slander.2)Mcdonalds could care less about this movie because even though it may be truthful there is people that watch it that will be uneffected and there company will still bring in millions of dollars of revenue.3)The final reason is how exactly was it slander to begin with? I mean im sorry if i missed it but there is nothing he did that could be labeled slander.&quot; an abusive attack on a person&#039;s character or good name [n]&nbsp; words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another [v]&nbsp; charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; &quot;The journalists have defamed me!&quot; &quot;The article in the paper sullied my reputation&quot; &quot; -Explain to me what was false in the movie?BTW I think everyone agrees that it wouldn&#039;t have affected him the same if he didn&#039;t eat only mcdonalds 3 times a day, but the issue now is slander. Just thought i would clarify that so no one is reduntant about it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwistedVisions, post: 561775, member: 554844"] Even if it was labeled a "documentary" if in fact it was slander and was mislabeled then mcdonalds could have sued. I mean in the movie the guy tried to set up an appointment to see a mcdonalds ceo which if they would have gone to this interview on his dvd then they could set the facts straight if they were false. What happened though? Well they didn't ever set up an interview because mcdonalds avoided him. I personally believe that it be difficult for mcdonalds to set up a slander lawsuit for many reasons. 1) He has 3 medical doctors that aren't biased and would testify that the information in the movie was indeed fact and not bullshit slander. 2)Mcdonalds could care less about this movie because even though it may be truthful there is people that watch it that will be uneffected and there company will still bring in millions of dollars of revenue. 3)The final reason is how exactly was it slander to begin with? I mean im sorry if i missed it but there is nothing he did that could be labeled slander. [B]" an abusive attack on a person's character or good name [/B] [B][n] words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another [/B] [B][v] charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"[/B] " -Explain to me what was false in the movie? BTW I think everyone agrees that it wouldn't have affected him the same if he didn't eat only mcdonalds 3 times a day, but the issue now is slander. Just thought i would clarify that so no one is reduntant about it [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification