Federal trial court rejects group libel lawsuit against makers of the movie ‘Out of the Furnace’

By Eugene Volkh | May 15, 2:14 p.m.

The Washington Post

Christian Bale stars in Relativity Media’s “Out of the Furnace.” (Kerry Hayes. © 2012 Relativity Media, All rights reserved.)

Christian Bale stars in Relativity Media’s “Out of the Furnace.” (Kerry Hayes. © 2012 Relativity Media, All rights reserved.)

“Group libel” lawsuits claiming that a race, ethnic group, religion, and the like was libeled by knowing or reckless falsehoods about them aren’t allowed under modern American libel law. But the matter is different when the group is small enough; in the words of the Restatement (Second) of Torts,

One who publishes defamatory matter concerning a group or class of persons is subject to liability to an individual member of it if, but only if,

(a) the group or class is so small that the matter can reasonably be understood to refer to the member, or

(b) the circumstances of publication reasonably give rise to the conclusion that there is particular reference to the member….

Comment a. As a general rule no action lies for the publication of defamatory words concerning a large group or class of persons. Unless the group itself is an unincorporated association, as to which see § 562, it cannot maintain the action; and no individual member of the group can recover for such broad and general defamation. The words are not reasonably understood to have any personal application to any individual unless there are circumstances that give them such an application. The extreme example is the statement of David that “All men are liars,” which in a sense defames all mankind and yet could not reasonably be taken to have any personal reference to each member of the human race. On the same basis, the statement that “All lawyers are shysters,” or that all of a great many persons engaged in a particular trade or business or those of a particular race or creed are dishonest cannot ordinarily be taken to have personal reference to any of the class.

Illustrations:

1. A newspaper publishes the statement that the “Stivers clan” have been engaged for years in a feud in the course of which many murders have been committed. There are in the community a great many interrelated families named Stivers. Neither the entire group nor any member of it can recover for defamation.

2. A newspaper publishes the statement that the officials of a labor organization are engaged in subversive activities. There are 162 officials. Neither the entire group nor any one of them can recover for defamation.

b. When the group or class defamed is sufficiently small, the words may reasonably be understood to have personal reference and application to any member of it, so that he is defamed as an individual. In this case he can recover for defamation. Thus the statement that “That jury was bribed” may reasonably be understood to mean that each of the twelve jurymen has accepted a bribe. It is not possible to set definite limits as to the size of the group or class, but the cases in which recovery has been allowed usually have involved numbers of 25 or fewer.

Illustration:

3. A newspaper publishes a statement that the officers of a corporation have embezzled its funds. There are only four officers. Each of them can be found to be defamed.

The core issue is thus whether a statement about a group is seen as a statement “of and concerning” the particular plaintiff — the general view is that statements about large groups aren’t so seen (because listeners recognize that generalizations about a group often don’t apply to individual members), but statements about small groups might be so seen.

This is the very issue that came up in Wednesday’s federal trial court decision inDegroat v. Cooper (D.N.J. May 14, 2014)Eriq Gardner (Hollywood Reporter) has the background:

A New Jersey federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit over Out of the Furnace filed last December by 17 members of the Ramapough Lunaape Nation, a Native American tribe located mostly in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S.

The film starred Christian Bale tracking his younger brother, played by Casey Affleck, who has been lured into a ruthless crime ring led by the evil character of Harlan De Groat, played by Woody Harrelson. The group is identified as the Jackson Whites and described as a community of “inbreds.” …

Note that the movie didn’t just refer to the group, but to at least one common surname (De Groat) within the group. Still, the court held, this wasn’t enough to make the statements “of and concerning” the plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs plead only that some of them share the same surname, but not first name, as two of the characters in the movie. They also contend that they are Ramapoughs, as are the characters in the movie, and that many of them live in the same region as the Ramapoughs. These allegations do not suffice to show that the alleged defamatory statements are “of and concerning” these Plaintiffs. In fact, Plaintiffs concede in their brief that the statements they complain of do not refer to them: “It is acknowledged that these Plaintiffs are not, specifically, characters in the movie ….”

There is of course, another issue here: The film wasn’t a documentary, and reasonable viewers would perceive it as a work of fiction. And while sometimes a work that is obviously “roman à clef” — i.e., is perceived by the public as making claims about real events, though under a fictionalized veneer or with some fictional components — might be seen as libelous, that would be a pretty high bar to pass, given viewers’ understanding that movies that aren’t sold as documentaries are generally about storytelling, not about factual accuracy (even when they are to some extent based on real surroundings). Still, the court managed to largely avoid this issue by simply concluding that the movie couldn’t be seen as making factual claims of and concerning any particular individual, whether or not it would be seen as making factual claims about the large group.

Ramapough Name Leonardo DiCaprio, New York Post in Defamation Lawsuit

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network 

Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/APLeonardo DiCaprio arrives at the Oscars on Sunday, March 2, 2014, at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
Leonardo DiCaprio arrives at the Oscars on Sunday, March 2, 2014, at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for — but didn’t win — the Best Actor Oscar for his performance in Wolf of Wall Street, but the Ramapough Lenape community of New Jersey is more concerned with the role he played in the making of a different 2013 release, Out of the Furnace.

DiCaprio, a producer of Out of the Furnace, is one of eight people named in a lawsuit brought by eight members of the Ramapough Lenape on three counts: false light, defamation, and infliction of emotional distress. Filmmaker Ridley Scott and his late brother Tony Scott, who were also credited as producers of the film, are among those named in the suit, as are director Scott Cooper and writer Brad Inglesby. The New York Post is also named as a defendant for publishing a review of the film with the title “New movie lifts curtain on NJ’s Ramapough Mountain people.”

The intention of the Ramapough to sue over the film has been known for some time, and an ICTMN story posted December 26 reported that a lawsuit had been filed by 17 tribal members in New Jersey District Court.

This appears to be a different lawsuit — documents published today by Radar.com are dated January 2, 2014. The CNN story that was the source for the original ICTMN post specified that the 17 plaintiffs were seeking copy50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus court costs. The Radar lawsuit documents list just eight plaintiffs, who request compensation “in an amount to be determined by a jury.”

The Radar lawsuit documents state that “The movie and article in the New York Post places Plaintiffs and their family members in a false light. Each have had an extremely negative effect on Plaintiffs’ community. It is extremely embarrassing to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and their family members are harrassed and discriminated against. The children are teased at school.”

Out of the Furnace isn’t the only gritty drama to feature the Ramapough — the Sundance TV series The Red Road, which premiered on Thursday, is also about the New Jersey community. According to reports, the Ramapough were consulted during the making of The Red Road.

 

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/03/ramapough-name-leonardo-dicaprio-new-york-post-defamation-lawsuit-153834

New Film, ‘Out of the Furnace,’ Accused of Stereotyping Ramapough Indians

 

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times“The undertones are racist and personal.” DWAINE C. PERRY, president and chief of the Ramapough Mountain Indians

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
“The undertones are racist and personal.” DWAINE C. PERRY, president and chief of the Ramapough Mountain Indians

By COREY KILGANNON

December 11, 2013  The New York Times

MAHWAH, N.J. — The past week has been unsettling for the Ramapough Mountain Indians, who live on this northern stretch of the Appalachian Mountains that overlooks the Manhattan skyline and wealthy parts of Bergen County. The new movie “Out of the Furnace,” featuring a star-studded cast that includes Christian Bale and Woody Harrelson, also features numerous negative references to the Ramapoughs. They include a fight-ring subplot.

Keith Van Dunk, 27, a member of the tribe, took a break from feeding the chickens at his father’s house up on Stag Hill here on Sunday morning and gestured at the surrounding woods.

“You see any fight ring up here?” he said. “Absolutely not.”

Tribal leaders and local elected officials held a news conference last week, speaking out against a film that they claim portrays them as trashy backwoods bumpkins involved in drugs and violence. One Ramapough henchman in the movie even bears Mr. Van Dunk’s last name.

The references constitute a “hate crime” that has “stained the community and stirred up animus” by increasing marginalization and stigmatization, said the Ramapoughs’ chief, Dwaine C. Perry, 66, in an interview.

In the past few days, he said, there had been several instances of Ramapough students in local high schools being picked on by classmates who had seen the film, including one case in which a teacher had to intervene.

At a showing of the movie last weekend, someone hurled slurs at a Ramapough woman in the theater, he said. There was also a fight at a local mall that tribal members said was stirred up by the film.

“The film contains ugly stereotypes that stain you for life,” Chief Perry said. “The undertones are racist and personal. It’s a hate crime when you look at the psychological impact on the kids.”

Contacted for comment, the film’s production company, Relativity Media, released a statement saying that the film is “entirely fictional” and not “based upon any particular person or group of people.”

“As is the case with most films, the filmmakers conducted research and drew upon their own personal life experiences in creating an original screenplay, and the story and the characters are entirely fictional,” the statement read.

Scott Cooper, who directed the film and co-wrote the script, was unavailable for comment Wednesday night. But a Relativity Media spokesman said that John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, Pa. — the other main setting in the film — had nothing but praise for the way the movie portrayed Braddock. Mr. Fetterman called it a respectful depiction that was “eloquent, forceful and honest,” in a guest column he wrote for Variety magazine.

Several characters in the film have last names that are prevalent Ramapough names, including De Groat and Mann. The film was not shot in the area, but the Bergen County Police Department is portrayed as the local authority.

Mr. Van Dunk said he refused to buy a ticket to the film, but he consulted the IMDB website and saw that several cast members were listed as “Jackson White.”

The term “Jackson White” is a slur used by outsiders to deride the Ramapoughs, Mr. Van Dunk said, referencing the tribe’s descent from Native Americans, whites and runaway slaves who settled in the mountains in the late 18th century. The term dredges up decades of a long, ugly history of discrimination and marginalization.

“To me, it’s like calling a black person the N-word, and my father is black,” said Mr. Van Dunk, who works for a moving company in Hackensack. “In high school, kids would call me a Jackson White in the hallway, and if I stuck up for myself, they’d say I’m living up to the stereotype.”

Before the opening of the film, which was the third-grossing film in the country last weekend, The New York Post published an article saying that it depicts the Ramapoughs as “New Jersey hillbillies.” The article characterized tribe members as unsophisticated, intermarrying types who are ridiculed, who hunt and eat squirrels, and who drive all-terrain vehicles on dirt roads.

Read the rest here, The New York Times

Out of the Furnace Movie