Scandal as Finnish national hero Mannerheim played by black actor

[Ideologue]

The problem is that they are being artsy with taxpayer money and were using false advertising and trying to cover things up.

So?  Finland can't afford a bomber force, so you might as well do something fun.

[garbon]

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

The Fins hardly had much choice given the circumstances.

They were just following orders.

[Eddie Teach]

They were just following orders.

They were attacked by the evil empire we allied with rather than the one we fought against.

[Ideologue]

Tim, I think instead of undertaking the Continuation War, they could have not undertaken the Continuation War.

Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.

[jimmy olsen]

Tim, I think instead of undertaking the Continuation War, they could have not undertaken the Continuation War.

Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.

They were just attacked without provocation and had a significant amount of territory unjustly stolen from them. It was completely within their right to launch the Continuation War.

[Ideologue]

That's a different argument.

[Solmyr]

I just think both sides of the argument are being stupid. Obviously, the nationalist types are once again getting offended over almost nothing (I say almost, because the filmmakers couldn't have been so oblivious that they didn't foresee some sort of response - and in fact the producer admitted that he expected a reaction, he just claimed to be surprised by the vehemence of it). On the other hand, the producer said that "Mannerheim is now a myth rather than a real person and he wanted to show the real person behind it" (apparently with the help of a Kenyan team who knew nothing at all about Finland or Mannerheim). This is a bullshit excuse because Mannerheim is probably the most written-about person in Finnish history (with the possible exception of President Kekkonen) and there's no shortage of information about him as a person.

[dps]

Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.

If you mean my statement that Mannerheim being dead wouldn't necessarily prevent his family from suing, you're probably right, because I don't see how they would show that there was any harm.  I was just saying that in theory they could successfully sue if somehow they could demonstrate harm was done.

[Ideologue]

Depends on your jurisdiction.  Some places permit suit against the defamer of a dead man.  However, Mannerheim is a public figure, so actual malice would have to be alleged in addition to the ordinary elements of defamation--since you forgot to do this it's definitely out.

Also, in my answer I'd point out that Mannerheim has no reputation to damage, insofar as he was Nazi-loving, Ally-fighting monster, beloved only by Finns and Tim.  But that's definitely a question of fact.

More seriously, yeah, I don't think alleging some guy who died forty years ago wanted to suck some dick, even as a statement of fact, could possibly cause any actual damage.  What I'm less than clear on is to whether saying a historical figure was gay is a statement of fact or opinion.  Opinion is not defamatory.  This is a question of law, and I would lean more toward "opinion."  I'm almost certain there is some actual case law on this question, but honestly I should've been in bed 4 hours ago.

There are also severe First Amendment issues in potentially permitting for-real scholarship to be subject to lawsuits; even if they go nowhere, the nuisance value alone would create a dangerous chilling effect on the priceless investigations our nation's higher educators do into whether or not our most distinguished dead people did, in fact, fuck guys.

[Martinus]

It might be if it somehow causes harm.  I can't see how Napoleon being inaccurately portrayed as liking carrot juice could cause harm, but I can see how having one's sexual proclivitites and practices inaccurately portrayed could.

I think we are going in circles here.

[Martinus]

In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.

Yeah, in England it needs to be damaging to their reputation and could cause them to be 'shunned or avoided' and it's based on the opinion of the reasonable man.  I doubt that calling someone gay would be covered by that now.

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

I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech.  Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.

The Satanic Verses is a great book, but implying in a claymation film, featuring his somewhat spiritual journeys to Central Asia were he meets his Kyrghz lover 'butterfly', that Mannerheim was gay or bisexual is TOO MUCH.  The same goes for defaming the crown of St. Stephen, or insulting Mary the Queen of Poland.

I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable

Well, probably a lot of people in the crowd who like the Mannerheim movie think that the guy who drew the Mohammed cartoons deserves the flak he gets and that you shouldn't say "gay" - hypocrisy and totalitarian tendencies cut both ways so I don't really see how they make for a compelling argument against one side only. We had this discussion recently in the gaming forum, of all places (the thread about lesbians).

I personally do not think either making a movie about Mohammed sodomizing Jesus in a bathtub full of pig blood, or saying that gays go to hell or showing some dead Finnish dude as a black gay rapist should fall in any way under the jurisdiction of courts and law enforcement, but milleage of many people may vary.

[Martinus]

At the same time I do not also think that, in terms of pure esthetic experience and enjoyment from experiencing art, it must work like "If you liked the Mohammed cartoons, you will also like a movie about a black gay Mannerheim." People's personal sensibilities vary and are irrational to a large degree, so as long as noone is trying to legislate them in any way, people should be free to pick and choose what they like and they dislike.

I like gay porn, I dislike straight porn, but that does not make me a heterophobe. Wanting to put all breeders in concentration camps does.

[Solmyr]

Also, in my answer I'd point out that Mannerheim has no reputation to damage, insofar as he was Nazi-loving, Ally-fighting monster, beloved only by Finns and Tim.  But that's definitely a question of fact.

Actually Mannerheim hated the Germans. Unsurprisingly, given his background as an officer of the Imperial Russian army. It's doubly hilarious that the Finnish jägers (German-trained volunteers who fought Russia in WW1) idolized him, when he almost ended up fighting against them.

[Syt]

The Finnish Jägers were trained, btw, near my old hometown. It used to be called Lockstedter Lager and was a major training site during WW1 (up to 10,000 soldiers at one time); these days it's called Hohenlockstedt. Taking the bus to the next best shopping town always led through the town and past the "Jääkärimuistomerkki" signpost that pointed the way to a small memorial where every year a small ceremony is held in memory of the Jägers.

[Sheilbh]

I' heading into work so haven't much time but there's no contradiction between information and myth. There's lots written about Washington, Napoleon and Churchill, but they're all in many ways mainly mythic figures now.