Supreme Court clears way for Natural Born Killers lawsuit
The US Supreme Court has allowed the family of a shooting victim to sue director Oliver Stone and others over claims that their fictional film Natural Born Killers inspired a real-life crime spree.
The 1994 film, directed by Stone and starring Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis, portrayed a couple who killed and committed robberies during a three-week period.
The judges let stand a Louisiana Appeals Court ruling that the film, which graphically depicted violence and crime, was not protected by constitutional free-speech guarantees because it allegedly incited 'imminent lawless activity'.
The high court's action cleared the way for the lawsuit by the family of a Louisiana woman who was shot and seriously wounded during a robbery attempt at her store.
The lawsuit sought damages against the directors, producers and distributors of the film. It was filed on behalf of Patsy Byers, who was shot and paralysed in March 1995.
The lawsuit alleged Sarah Edmondson, the daughter of an Oklahoma judge, and her accomplice, Benjamin Darras, had repeatedly watched the film and then began their crime spree. The suit alleged the pair decided to emulate the couple depicted in the film, murdering a Mississippi businessman and attempting to kill Byers.
The suit claimed Stone, Time Warner and others involved in directing, producing or distributing the film should pay damages because they made a film that intended to make people violent.
Theodore Olson, lawyer for the Hollywood defendants, appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the ruling by the Louisiana court.
He said the decision created 'a dangerously low threshold for damage suits against artists for the criminal conduct of alleged imitators' and represented a 'drastic departure' from settled First Amendment law.
Mr Olson said the decision 'exposed writers, publishers, broadcasters and motion picture producers to costly litigation' whenever it could be alleged an individual inflicted injury based on inspiration from an artist's work.
He said artists would have no choice but to censor violent depictions that might lead to imitation and costly jury verdicts.
Supporting the appeal were several media-related groups, including those representing the nation's television networks, booksellers, authors, publishers, film directors and the motion picture industry.
