Pretty frivolous lawsuit. His permission was given to NBC for the interview, story done. Don't like it being used later? Not your choice.

A similar claim of something being used out of context was made of Bowling for Columbine and this is just about as invalid a point. It is hard to say a literal claim is made by Moore by editing a couple of things in a certain order. If the connection isn't literally said and made, it is difficult to say it holds up. But whatever.

This is pretty much a case of two wrongs don't make a right.

I almost made a comment about the fact that the jacktard is asking for 85 million... but I realize many people sue for millions knowing the actual judgement will be far far less, perhaps a million.

And, you never know what the contract said, do you Matt? It could be that the contract the soldier signed aggreed to forfeit rights unconditionally, or there could be a claus in there that dictates certain ways that the video interview could be used, etc - for example, that NBC has the right to use but not to sell the material. You just don't know :P