A lawyer’s view:
“On a side note, Radden-Keefe is going to feel the firm side of the law when served with discovery notices and court orders to produce discovery concerning the Marian Price litigation. Given the seriousness of all that, he will either have to make a very robust apology and damages or face a written judgement which will destroy his credibility and sink anything flowing from that book and Disney series. That’s my reading of it but I could be wrong. The cross examination will prove enlightening!”
The Broken Elbow 
Maybe. This will be governed by UK law on defamation. Under US law, Price would have to show injury/damage to her reputation. Since she was convicted of the 1973 bombing, the result of a trial might well be a conclusion that her reputation was far from stellar and that she had a callous disregard for human life. That said, the point that Keefe’s deposition will be interesting and critical is spot on. Disney’s lawyers say that the accusation was vetted and confirmed by multiple sources before the film was released. He will be in a difficult spot if he refuses to identify the sources, if indeed they exist and, of course, they may not.
I’m not sure on that one. I’m a film scholar by training and recent major case law and legislative precedents set by Disney raise an eyebrow. The Corporation is a major percentage of the annual GDP for California and Florida, it has defined labor relations in ways beyond any other media enterprise in a way only rivaling General Electric, and that extends to intellectual property for screen adaptations. Disney purchased the Marvel Comic Book publisher in Fall 2009 and took control of their superhero franchise. This created a lot of litigation that reached up to the level of the Supreme Court on behalf of the family of Jack Kirby. Kirby had been the actual creator of all those characters attributed falsely to Stan Lee for half a century, his heirs were furious for being cut out of the most successful money-printing machine of the past 20 years, and they had all the necessary evidence to show this, right down to the time-stamped original sketches of Captain America. Disney blinked and settled out of court rather than risk SCOTUS, which is extremely favorable for ownership of intellectual property issues in a way favoring the plaintiffs given such circumstances. (I have even wondered aloud if the completely-bizarre and out-of-nowhere ETERNALS film from several years ago was produced from Kirby’s original solo-authored graphic novel as an element of the undisclosed out-of-court settlement.)
What does that mean? Disney had to go to the Supreme Court over inadvertent liability exposures created by an author named Stan Lee. He falsely appropriated work without proper attribution. Keefe said in interviews they intentionally excised discussing the role of BC admin and the US federal government because it felt like it just got too far into the weeds. Crap. He’s didn’t want to deal with Ed Molloney as a screen character because he’s not going to worship his plagiarist. Golly, gee, what a swell Boston kid! (I live in Providence, this is why we call their Brahmins ‘Massholes.’)
I can very well imagine that the adaptation contracts and clauses all stipulated that any and all litigation was going to be obliged to arbitration under US libel/slander/defamation laws that absolutely protect Keefe. The mandates of the law in the US basically would dictate that Marian Price go before a US court in California and provide witness testimony with evidence demonstrating a viable alibi on the night Jean McConville disappeared, something along the lines of a hotel bill at a resort in Jamaica that shows she could not possibly have been in Ireland when this occurred. Disney had a very substantial role in authoring a lot of intellectual property laws in the 1990s with the Clinton administration and the late Congressman Sonny Bono. Protecting American media firms from litigation by European libel/slander/defamation laws that use the complete opposite dynamic of favoring the plaintiff. This is a hallmark of when the US actually uses First Amendment journalistic shield laws, to defend their corporations as opposed to their journalists.
Ed, plagiary lawsuits are a different matter entirely with Disney and you could win there
Here’s hoping. Happy New Year, Ed!
A voice from the rave!
Hope the family are well.
Peter
Ed, I write for Counterpunch and have been critically dissecting the miniseries. How would you feel about a web interview on YouTube? Jeffrey St Clair and Joshua Frank both can vouch for my cred on this one
I am recovering from a bad case of pneumonia but once that is out of the way, no problem….
In theory, no problem, but i am as sick as a dog
By the time you read this you probably be aware of Martin Dillon’s new book which brings (very welcome in my view!) complications to Radden Keefe’s narrative. Looking forward to your opinion on his new book. I haven’t been able to read it yet, this comment is based on what I read in today’s Irish News
thanks liam, sorry for the tardy response; i haven’t been well recently