Celebrity Justice
Borat Lawsuit -- High Five!!!

How's this for the beginning of a lawsuit filed today in Los Angeles County Superior Court? -- "Sacha Baron Cohen is a prankster."Click to view documents

Two anonymous plaintiffs are suing 20th Century Fox and One America Productions, claiming members of their college fraternity were interviewed to become part of the smash "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" film.

The plaintiffs -- listed as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 -- were allegedly assured the film would not be shown in the U.S. and their identities would not be revealed.

They were both selected to appear in the movie and, according to the suit, taken "to a drinking establishment 'to loosen up' and provided alcoholic beverages." They claim they signed the movie releases after "heavy drinking."

The suit claims both men were then taken to a motor home where they were filmed, all the while "encouraged to continue drinking."

The movie features a scene in a motor home where Cohen gets drunk with three frat boys who go on a racist rant about how they wished they had slaves and how minorities in the United States "have all the power."

According to the lawsuit, the frat boys only received $200 for the controversial appearance.

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.

The suit asks for unspecified damages.

Calls to 20th Century Fox were not immediately returned.



Tags: Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, SachaBaronCohen

Reader Comments

(Page 8 of 16) Previous 15 Comments | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

106. Busted! These guys are racialist and they knows it. Buya shaka. Go Borat!

Posted at 12:45PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Ali G

107. angry gdi's make me laugh. It's not our fault you chose to live in a pathetic dorm with the rest of the geeks

Posted at 12:58PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Ryan Schultz

108. it's interesting the number of you who defend this seemingly idiotic lawsuit on the grounds that cohen and crew violated some facet of contract law....

there hasn't been any proof of that offered thus far AT ALL. it seems much more likely that these jerks wanted to sue for a number of personal reasons (i.e. findinh themselves humiliated at their own brazen ignorance, wanting to benefit for a proven cashcow). of course they'd provide some excuse for signing the release agreement-- how else could they sue?? the proof remains to be seen. maybe you guys should take it easy on the aggressive defending of a few proven a**holes and wait to see what evidence they produce.

Posted at 12:22PM on Nov 10th 2006 by jfkosdjfks

109. What a bunch of Duffuses. It's like fat people blaming McDonalds for being fat. No dude, its you eating 5 Big macs in a row. "Borat" didn't make them say what they said.

Posted at 12:24PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Josh

110. It's TjB (typical jewish behavior) to pull this type of nonsense, and Hollywood is run for the most part by them so it's encouraged against the goyim. Parents need to school their kids against that, but wait - doing so would be considered not cool as the alcohol no longer flows, and as a racist act, wouldn't it?

Posted at 12:24PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Hairy Herry

111. Alcohol = impaired judgement = stupidity

This is a lesson so many frat kids try so hard to learn the hard way.

If I read this story right, they knew they were going to be in a movie BEFORE they started drinking so.. the makers of Borat are pretty much free and clear of any criminal charges because even while heavily intoxicated, you are held directly responsible for your behavior. Ask anyone that's been busted for DUI.

As for a civil suit, no idea, but I would hope that it wouldn't get anywhere.. we've already seen too much foolish litigation as it is..

Posted at 1:34PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Sean

112. 10. I'm glad Sacha Cohen is getting sued. I'm sick of all this ambush humor and innocent people's expense.

Those poor, poor racist misogynistic drunks! I bet they Mister Borat made them do it! Drunken frat boys? That'll be the the day!

Posted at 12:51PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Chris mankey

113. Noone forced them to say the things they did. Being drunk is a terrible excuse.

vovamir

Posted at 1:03PM on Nov 10th 2006 by vovamir

114. Well looks like they're not getting any sympathy from this blog. Mom and dad should kick their little asses. Oh wait, it was mom and dad that taught them to be asses. The south raises it's ugly head. Oh well!

Posted at 1:06PM on Nov 10th 2006 by ratherthanthat

115. First of all, it is my opinion that whatever you outwardly express, intoxicated or not are your true feelings, except when it involves drunk dialing. I think everyone that is upset with Mel Gibson would agree. They may lie dormant, but the fact that this actor was clever enough to envoke true feelings out of these douche bags was in my mind quite genius. Secondly, I notice a lot of badmouthing of fraternities, which would suggest that there are a lot of ignorant and stereotypical individuals out there. These 2 guys were douches, which most people seem to agree, the fact that they were in a frat does not warrant a conclusion that all fraternity guys are racist, sexist, 6 pack of bud light toting, upside down visor wearing as*clowns.

Posted at 1:09PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Shenanigans

116. The frat kids were stupid, but they should get more than $200 and should sue Borat for every buck they can get.

Posted at 3:39PM on Nov 10th 2006 by daveinboca

117. No one including Mel Gibson says things they don't really mean at one level or another, when they're drunk. Try to fool yourselves if you want but most of us know what it's like to get drunk. And so we know it's a lie to say you had no control over your mouth while you were intoxicated.

Posted at 1:27PM on Nov 10th 2006 by sosad

118. It's the lawsuit that makes it clear that they meant what they said!

Without it, it just looks like either tasteless screenwriting or "guys gone wild" for the camera.

Posted at 1:48PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Sekmet

119. i thought the point was to show a view espoused by certain sections of males and about how they treat women, and views of cultures of which they know little or nothing about, not just fraternity, and although if encouraged then he was playing on insecurity's but surely it was just attempting again for the medium of film to tackle such views, do they really think they are ever going to have a successful relationship and hopefully i lesson learnt for both of them, it is a question of whether these views can be changed? as the rest of the film was to show what views of reality people had, but giving opinions on such little information about the sketch such as whether it was scripted. to what extent they were coerced is hard enough on its own, but i have to say if it was put on film and as somebody mentioned before the contract they signed would've been bulletproof so i can't see if being successful

Posted at 2:21PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Ian

120. To Shananigans, who said everyone who is truthful when drunk except when they drunk dial:

What kind of drugs are you on? It is commonly known that alcohol is referred to liquid truth, or liquid Balls which means that it causes you to blurt out something you would never say or do something you would never do when youre sober. Why is drunk dialing an exception to the rule?

Thats the most retarded statement Ive ever heard

Posted at 1:54PM on Nov 10th 2006 by Arctic Kat

Previous 15 Comments | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments