Scandal as Finnish national hero Mannerheim played by black actor

[Sheilbh]

Artsy types does something artsy. I don't see the problem at all.

If you don't think you'll like the film, don't watch it.

Yep.  Totally agree with all you've said.

[The Minsky Moment]

Best Henry V I saw was Andre Braugher in Central Park.

[Viking]

I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay.

Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?

No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

[Sheilbh]

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism.  Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage. 

This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group

[garbon]

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism.  Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage. 

This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group

[garbon]

I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay.

Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?

No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.

[Viking]

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism.  Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage. 

This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group

No, it just reminds us that 90 years is still a short time in politics. There were alot of conflicts that happened at that time that never really had a re-match that still have deep sores. Ireland, Greece/Turkey and Armenia still fester today. Mannerheim does represent a view of finland held and valued by the winning side in the war. The losing side continued to exist and while none of the decendents of the reds want to be ruled by communist russia today it is easy to find people on the left who try to justify their own enchantment with evil and the tradition behind it by saying the other side was just as bad.

Try as much as you like garbon is perfectly happy to falsely call somebody gay, that is wrong. It may not meet the legal standard for slander in your legal system, but it is immoral, especially since he almost certainly was a homophobe. In my mind it is just as immoral as claiming death bed conversions for darwin or hitchens or claiming that Billy Graham was a muslim or the last pope was a hindu. 

[Viking]

Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.

but you aren't the only person in the world

[garbon]

Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.

but you aren't the only person in the world

But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive.

[Viking]

Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.

but you aren't the only person in the world

But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive.

Because it is public money that's being used.

[HVC]

The queen mother was into S&M and routinely sodomized the help... Actually that would be kind of cool of true

[garbon]

Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.

but you aren't the only person in the world

But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive.

Because it is public money that's being used.

That doesn't actually answer the question / Jacob already spoke to the public money.

[The Minsky Moment]

So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.

Being portrayed by a Kenyan in a movie 23 people will watch seems like the least of his worries for posterity.

[Solmyr]

This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group

Finland has its share of balkantards. We call them winterwartards here. They are the ones who think Finland won the Winter War.

[dps]

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism.  Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage. 

Whether it would be defamation or not depends on Finnish law, so I wouldn't be so sure about the legalities. 

Even under US law, I'm not sure that it's impossible to defame a deceased person.  Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's possible, and the Mannerheim family would have standing to sue.  Whether an allegation of homosexuality does or doesn't harm the reputation of a heterosexual might, at this point, make an interesting test case, but I think that it would probably be found to at least be potentially harmful, but there would be a burden of proof to should any actual harm.  (This isn't really discriminatory--in theory an untrue allegation of heterosexuality made against an acknowledged homosexual could be equally defamatory--but again, there would be a burden of proof to demonstrate actual harm.)  The film could be defended against charges of defamation by claiming that it is satire, and therefore protected speech.  (I don't think that the film is "an artistic representation with no claims to literalism" in-and-of itself, would be a valid defense--if it presents statements that are false and cause harm, it's actionable.  It would probably make claims that it caused actual harm harder to prove.)  And any suit against the filmmakers would have to demonstrate that there was actual malice involved, since Mannerheim was undoubtedly a public figure.

But again, this is if there were a suit under US law.  I have no idea about Finnish law.