It was hard not to marvel while watching the movie how completely deceived some of the boobs had been--the Old South dining society members and the aforesaid frat boys first among them. I think it is probably true that this was vetted pretty thoroughly, but I think it's sort of new ground. I understand that the subjects received payments, and signed agreements. Sure would like to see one of those agreements! But, even if you accept money and are told you will be on camera and maybe iin a movie and release the producers from any liability from what might ensue, I doubt that there was even close to accurate disclosure about what was in store. Do you think the agreement provided that the subjects consented to be humiliated, or made to look ridiculous and idiotic? In other words, I think the producers would have been well advised to have a line item in the (otherwise apparently modest) budget for additional payments to meathead frat boys and daughters of the Confederacy.

Concerning insurance, I'll let an insurance expert tell us if the standard liability policy for moviemakers includes these sorts of harms, especially if deception or fraud is alleged.

Yeah, but what about Girls Gone Wild!!!!! those ladies are effing wasted when they sign their releases and many have gotten shot down in their attempts to sue

you raise some really interesting questions, schmader. i was about to cite girls gone wild but tera @2 beat me to it.

joe francis was fined over $2 million for his questionable practice of having drunk girls show their tits. the morons behind the bumfights video series received jail time for staging fights amongst homeless guys, many of them mentally ill and/ir drunk.

i have to wonder if these cases will be raised when the borat legal battle ensues. while i don't think borat falls in the same harmfully exploitive category as these two examples, there's no denying that it is pretty sketchy to get folks drunk and film their antics under deceptive conditions.

it sure was a funny fucking movie, though.

Hi Kerri! I think the fines given to Joe Francis tell a reasonable story about what could possibly happen to Borat--and if Sacha Baron Cohen is as smart of a businessman and he is an artist, he'll set aside a nice chunk of the hundred-plus million his $14 million picture is scheduled to make to pay off (hilariously) injured parties...

Oh the anguish of being revealed to America as drunken moronic bigots!

I'm no attorney, but to claim liable, don't you have to prove that the movie (or photograph or whatever) implies something that is not true? But if you stupidly say you think gays should be killed on camera, then you said it. It isn't liable because it's true that you said it, now matter how much you might later regret saying it in front of a camera, or how stupid you look for having said it.

In other words, if you had accused Ted Haggard on film of being a homo a year ago, he could presumably have sued you for liable. But if you make the same assertion now (post pitiful meltdown) he can't bring a liable suit, because it's true, no matter how distressing it is to him.

I'm guessing that his model release is probably iron clad. People sign all sorts of shit without reading it. "I'm gonna be in a movie? Cool! Where do I sign?"

I want to know how you can guarantee that a movie will not be "shown" in the U.S. What would prevent a movie being shown in Kazakhstan from being seen in the U.S. -- how would you stop a tourist from bringing one to the states?

Furthermore... what difference would it make if it wasn't shown in the states? Is it somehow acceptably less humiliating and less damaging to your (drunk frat-boy) reputation to be humiliated everywhere else in the world?

Hey SDA, I think you might be mixing up "liable" and "libel". I don't think anyone's going to get anywhere with a libel or slander claim here. Truth is an absolute defense. I haven't read the Complaint (why arm myself with the facts?), but there are a number of different sorts of clams that one might bring, most obviously tort claims like negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy (appropriation of name or likeness, false light protrayal, stuff like that). In the process, one might ask the court to rescind the agreements, on the ground that they were fraudulently procured. I can even imagine that hostess in Georgia saying that Borat's presentation to her of a bag of poop amounted to a civil assault, for which the producers are liable for the resulting damages. Would rather represent Cohen though!

Looklooklooklooklook!

life insurance rates