« Home | High Priced Coffee » | Cool Poetry Review from Relevant Mag » | More Borat » | Borat Stirs Things Up and the Cardinals Apologize » | Political Observations » | Borat & the Pentecostals » | More From Borat » | Apostolics In The News » | The Bible as Portrayed in Legos » | Bunch Speaks at H2O » 

Friday, November 10, 2006 

Borat Sued

Posted by: Denelle

In an interesting turn of events two frat boys from South Carolina, who are depicted in a somewhat unfavorable light in Borat, have sued the studio and production company responsible for the movie. They are asking for unspecified damages.

It seems that one scene in the movie involves an:

RV full of wasted, University of South Carolina frat boys, and just how their loudly voiced philosophical alignments with the faux-Kazakh on subjects such as women, Jews, and the lamentable abolition of legal slavery . . .


The plaintiffs claim that they were promised that the movie would never be released in the U.S. and that they were then taken to a bar and given alcohol to help them loosen up. Additionally they were encouraged to continue drinking throughout the filming and then signed the movie release forms while completely wasted.

The plaintiffs claim they suffered "humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community..." because the movie was indeed released in the U.S.


While the tactics used to get these boys to agree to participate in the movie were definitely underhanded I'm not sure any Court will rule in their favor. Sometimes you just have to bear the responsibility for your stupid behavior. And drinking to excess and then publically making pro-slavery, and anti-Semitic comments definitely qualifies as stupid.

But I bet Mel Gibson can sympathize with their plight.

They actually can sue if they were drunk when they signed the release if:
Intoxication will give a party the power of avoidance only if: (1) he is so intoxicated that he cannot understand the nature of his transaction; and (2) the other party has a reason to know that this is the case.

which would mean that the release was not legally binding.

Post a Comment