The film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal is having legal problems; in the Philadelphia area a college professor depicted in the film has sued for libel:

A television group's decision to air a documentary critical of Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam antiwar activities has sparked a backlash from media watchdog groups and advertisers, and a lawsuit from a Vietnam veteran featured in the film.

Shares in Sinclair Broadcast Group, which intends to air the anti-Kerry film, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, on all 62 of its stations across the country, traded at an all-time low yesterday on Wall Street.

Yesterday, Kenneth J. Campbell, a University of Delaware professor who is one of the veterans depicted in the 41-minute film, sued the producer for libel, saying the film falsely portrayed him as a fraud and a liar. The civil lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

Last week, the Kerry campaign called the film a politically motivated attack that is unfair and inaccurate.

In his suit, Campbell said the film combined footage of his appearance at a 1971 war protest with a voice-over. The voice-over says that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds," who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform."

"They put me in it as almost a centerpiece example of a fraudulent, lying pseudo-veteran," said Campbell, an associate professor who teaches political science and international relations, including an honors course called Lessons of Vietnam. "I thought about it, and could not let it pass. I nearly lost my life in Vietnam multiple times and to have someone say I am a fake and a fraud and didn't even serve in Vietnam is utterly despicable."

The movie is scheduled to replace regular programming during prime time in such swing states as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, during a four-day period this month. Sinclair's two Pennsylvania TV stations are in Pittsburgh: WPGH-53, a Fox affiliate, and WCWB, a WB station.

The film "has taken on a life of its own," its producer, Carlton Sherwood of Harrisburg, said yesterday. "I was told that throughout the country there are hundreds of places where small and large groups are getting together to watch this."

The film was to have been shown at the Baederwood Mall theater in Jenkintown tonight, but Greg Wax, the theater's general manager, said last night that it was canceled because of the Campbell lawsuit and because Abington police were concerned about "civil disturbances" if the film was shown.

Campbell, who has retained Philadelphia lawyer James E. Beasley Jr., said he sent the Jenkintown theater and Sinclair Broadcast Group a letter notifying them that if they showed the film, they would be named in his lawsuit as additional defendants.

As to Professor Campbell's Vietnam era testimony, here are excerpts from the original Winter Soldier Investigation:

CAMPBELL. My name is Kenneth J. Campbell. I'm 21. I'm a Philadelphia resident. I was a Corporal in the Marine Corps. I was an FO, Forward Artillery Scout Observer. I FO'd for Bravo Company, First Battalion, First Marine Regiment, First Marine Division. I was in Vietnam from February of '68 to March of '69. I went straight into the Marine Corps from high school and I am now a student at Temple University in Philadelphia. My testimony will consist of eyewitnessing and participating in the calling in of artillery on undefended villages, mutilation of bodies, killing of civilians, mistreatment of civilians, mistreatment of prisoners and indiscriminate use of artillery, harassment and interdiction fire.

MODERATOR. Mr. Campbell, you were, I believe, in the same unit that Mr. Camile was. There was a period of perhaps two months separating the time that he left and the time you came. Was this same unit type policy, was this carried on?

CAMPBELL. Some of the policy was not carried on because of an incident that happened in Quang Tri Province that Scott Camile witnessed and there was a big stink about it. There was some kind of investigation into it and I heard about it when I got to Nam and all the guys that were there before me talked about it and things were kind of cooled down and so a lot of this stuff when I first got there wasn't actually carried out. Bravo Company was to cool it for a while. The whole Battalion, actually, because we had a bad mark against us from the incident previous to the time I got there.

MODERATOR. One more question on that. The training--What did you consider the Vietnamese? Were they equal with you?

CAMPBELL. The Vietnamese were gooks. We didn't just call the VC or the NVA gooks. All Vietnamese were gooks and they were slant eyes. They were zips. They were Orientals and they were inferior to us. We were Americans. We were the civilized people. We didn't give a ------ about those people.

MODERATOR. Any of you gentlemen here on the panel, could you release any incidents of fragging that you ever heard of or saw? Mr. Campbell.

CAMPBELL. In January of 1969, a couple of miles northeast of An Hoa, in the Arizona territory, my unit was temporarily assigned to Operation Taylor Common. We moved out, we waited until dark and moved out into a very heavily booby-trapped area. The lead platoon hit a booby trap. The word was passed back that it was the platoon commander that hit it and then the CO went up to check to see how the platoon commander was and there was another explosion. The initial word came back that the CO hit a booby trap.

Now from the first blast, the first booby trap that was hit, the platoon commander's radio man was also hit. He went to the hospital and was back to the unit about two weeks later. He told me and several other people, two or three other people privately, that the second booby trap was not a booby trap but that one of the men from the platoon of the commander who hit the first booby trap fragged the company commander because he was very upset about the platoon commander hitting the booby trap. He was upset about the CO waiting until dark to move out. He thought it was a stupid move and figured that got his platoon commander, and the men in that platoon were pretty tight with that platoon commander. I witnessed the explosion. I witnessed the flash, but it was dark. I couldn't see the guy throw the grenade. I didn't know that he threw it until the platoon radio man explained this to me.

One of the practical problems with filing a defamation action is that truth is a defense. Therefore, once a lawsuit is filed, the discovery process opens the life of the plaintiff to scrutiny which can often be embarassing.

I haven't read the allegations in the complaint, but here is an [edited version] of what Professor Campbell said on Chris Matthews' Hardball Politics:

Sherwood was disputing claims by VVAW member and Winter Soldier witness Kenneth J. Campbell on the September 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Campbell said that testimony by him and other Winter Soldier witnesses formed the factual basis for Senator John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Sherwood attempted to discredit the Winter Soldier investigation, Campbell defended himself and the other veterans who testified:

SHERWOOD: And as far as what Ken said, everything that came from the Winter Soldiers hearing has been utterly discredited through volumes and volumes of books and not one...

CAMPBELL: That's untrue.

[...]

There was only one person in the Vietnam Vets Against the War that was uncovered as having been a sergeant when he said he was a captain. Otherwise, the rest of the folks, we all brought our DD-214s [a document issued to military members upon separation from active service] that day. I brought mine today, in case you challenged my credibility. And we were not frauds. And we did do or see or participate in what we said we did.

I'm not sure what the standard is for implied libel. (Considered here in the context of public figures.)

A primary consideration is the issue of whether or not Mr. Campbell is a public figure. I don't know whether being a published author and longtime activist makes one a public figure or not. He may or may not be; he also may be a limited public figure (here, possibly a public figure in the context of Vietnam War activism).

Professor Campbell's diary of his trip to the International War Crimes Conference in Oslo might be helpful in this analysis. The following two day excerpt from the diary gives a feel for the trip and what it might have been like to be an international peace activist in 1971:

Day 3: Friday, June 18th, Moscow

Up early for breakfast. I went with Tamara to get a photo for my visa. Had a good personal talk with her. Then all of us met with the Chargé d'Affairs of North Vietnam (DRV) at his office. Very good meeting. Returned for lunch. Many of us had been requesting to go to the countryside and this was promised but never fulfilled. Instead, we met with Comrade Tarasov who is the Assistant Head of the International Department of the Soviet Peace Committee. He was very cold and formal, unlike our Soviet guides and translators, Boris and Tamara. We had dinner, then went to the Kremlin on Tarasov's insistence. We met some Russian student vaudeville performers and exchanged gifts and song. Very moving for all! In the evening we went to the ballet. Returned and had supper. Then we went for a walk in Red Square.

After walking Tamara to the subway stop, Larry, Nathan and I decided to see if we could take off unattended. We walked about a half-mile from our hotel but got tired and stopped in the Hotel Metropol for a drink. Met a Scandinavian pilot and had a short, good talk. He invited us to Stockholm for the 28th of June to his yacht. Went into the bar, had a drink and took in the entertainment. Went back to the hotel and crashed.

Day 4: Saturday, June 19th, Moscow/Helsinki/Stockholm/Oslo/Utoya

Left the hotel with the DRV and Pathet Lao delegation on the same bus. Went to the airport and flew out on the same flight during which we met General Sinkapo who led the counterattack on Lam Son 719. (U.S. invasion of Laos, Operation "Dewey Canyon II").

We arrived in Helsinki about one and a half hours later without my blue bag. Nothing of great value in it, luckily. We went on a sight-seeing tour of Helsinki and established a deeper friendship on the bus with the Laotians. There were three beautiful Lao children with them. Had dinner at a hotel in Tapiola.

We returned to the airport and boarded a plane for Stockholm and were there just long enough to catch a plane for Oslo. Arrived in Oslo and were met by reps from Norway Antiwar Movement. We were whisked off (just the American vets and Frank) to the Island of Utoya. Utoya is about thirty miles north of Oslo, in the middle of a fjord and it is a picturesque "Democratic-Republic Socialist State." It's maybe one-half mile long and one-quarter mile wide. About fifty guys and girls were waiting for us and they had an entire pig roasting over a pit, named "Nixon II." ("Nixon I" was the year before.) Much beer, vodka, food, song and dance.

Professor Campbell's work continues to be internationally known, and his writing has been featured at an Air Force Academy web site.

I find it ironic that Campbell implicitly seems to agree with at least Stolen Honor's subtitle (that some wounds never heal):

"Vietnam is our nation's most divisive conflict since the Civil War, which at least had [the South's formal surrender at] Appomattox to resolve it," said Kenneth J. Campbell, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international studies at University of Delaware who co-authored "Give Peace a Chance: Exploring the Vietnam Antiwar Movement."

Campbell added: "Vietnam had no Appomattox. That's where all the venom comes from. It remains an open national wound covered with Band-Aids."

Quite recently, Professor Campbell has been quoted in the media about the draft:

Kenneth J. Campbell, a University of Delaware political science professor who served as a combat Marine in Vietnam, said college students would weigh heavily in any political calculus of reinstating a draft.

"A draft would create a firestorm. These campuses would explode," Campbell said. "That's what's kept a lot of kids quiet about Iraq. They weren't under the gun."

UPDATE: According to this article, Stolen Honor contains new allegations against Senator Kerry which have never been previously reported.

A former Vietnam War prisoner of war charges that as he was being tortured by his communist captors, John Kerry was preying on his family to denounce the United States.

The new allegation against Kerry is made in the controversial documentary “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal” by James H. Warner, a former Marine Corps naval flight officer who won the Silver Star after spending more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison.

Warner’s sensational charge against Kerry is just one of the fresh allegations that Kerry did more than protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War – he also worked to help the North Vietnamese by getting families of POWs to criticize the U.S. government.

When Capt. James (Jim) Howie Warner was shot down on Oct. 13, 1967, he could hardly have known at the time that his pain and suffering wwould be enhanced by a recently discharged naval officer-turned-war protester named John Kerry.

As Warner suffered brutal treatment in Vietnam, young Kerry was helping to organize the infamous Winter Soldier hearings held in Detroit, Mich., at the end of January and into early February of 1971.

Warner recounts that Kerry personally recruited his grieving mother to testify at the Winter Soldier hearings – testimony that Warner was confronted and taunted with while in captivity, testimony that later appeared in John Kerry’s infamous wartime book, “The New Soldier.”

In “Stolen Honor,” Warner says, “They showed me a transcript of testimony that my mother had given at the Winter Soldier hearing. I read her testimony; it was not particularly damning, but I wondered how did someone persuade her? Then they showed me a statement by John Kerry. I know that he did talk to her and my sisters. It is really a contemptible act to take a grieving old lady and prey upon her grief and manipulate her grief purely for the promotion of your own political agenda.”

Warner himself is frustrated by the efforts being made to block this film:

Warner is just one of 17 POWs who appear in "Stolen Honor" and who accuse John Kerry of betrayal.

Warner is frustrated that his story, and that of the other POWs, is being denied to the American people and efforts have been made to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing the documentary.

UPDATE: The New York Times has more on the story:

Whether theaters might prove more skittish remained to be seen. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on its Web site late Monday that a movie house in Jenkintown, Pa., had canceled plans to show the film Tuesday night. Campbell's lawyer, James Beasley, told The Associated Press that he had threatened to sue the theater if it aired ``Stolen Honor.''

The segment in the film involving Campbell shows him speaking with another Marine at a 1971 gathering in Detroit, during which Kerry and other servicemen shared stories about horrific acts they had committed or witnessed during the war.

Campbell asks whether the Marine recalls an assault on a Vietnamese village; the Marine offers to provide more detail. Neither man is identified. Sherwood introduces the conversation by saying, ``Many of the horror stories seem made up on the spot,'' but does not elaborate as to why he believes that to be the case.

Campbell also threatened legal action against the Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of 62 television stations that has announced that it intends to pre-empt regular programming to broadcast ``Stolen Honor.''

MORE: This New York Times account makes it quite clear that the film was canceled because of the legal threat:

Lawyers for Mr. Campbell sent letters to Sinclair and to a theater near Philadelphia that was planning to show the film on Tuesday, warning them that the film was defamatory. The theater canceled the showing, citing "pending litigation."

If this lawsuit revolves around a statement that Professor Campbell's testimony was not believable, I can't help wondering whether politics might be motivating it. Here's Bill Carter, also writing in the New York Times:

Senator John Kerry could find his presidential hopes damaged this week when the 62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group carry a documentary about his antiwar activities 30 years ago.

UPDATE (10/19/04): Evidence that the lawsuit may be part of a strategy to block the film?

Facing lawsuits, investor pressure, regulatory challenges, and a $1 million offer to air a pro-Sen. John Kerry film, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced yesterday that it would run only part of a documentary that calls Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities a betrayal of fellow veterans.

The Baltimore-based broadcaster said it had directed many of its 62 stations to run a one-hour program Friday night that includes portions of Carlton Sherwood's film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.

....

A spokesman for Sherwood, who was part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper investigation in 1980 and is based in Harrisburg, said the filmmaker was considering legal action against the Baederwood 4 Theater in Abington, which canceled last night's scheduled movie premiere. The theater acted after a University of Delaware professor, Kenneth J. Campbell, filed suit in Philadelphia, contending that the film libeled him.

Campbell said the movie showed him at a 1971 antiwar protest, while a voiceover says the participants were really not Vietnam vets, and were "discovered as frauds."

Of the cancellation by the theater, "we had a valid contract," said Charlie Gerow, spokesman for Sherwood's Red, White and Blue Productions.

"There is no doubt we are witnessing a systematic attempt to silence these former POWs who are American heroes by any definition," Gerow said. "It's equally clear this systemic attempt is being coordinated by the top levels of the Kerry campaign."

Mark Nevins, a Kerry campaign spokesman for Pennsylvania, denied that. "This had nothing to do with the Kerry campaign. Carlton Sherwood ought to know that if you perpetrate a fraud on the American people, the American people will rise up against you."

UPDATE (10/22/04): According to today's Philadelphia Inquirer, Professor Cambell's lawsuit has forced Stolen Honor off the air and off the screen:

public-access cable station in Wayne plans to bar rebroadcast of an anti-John Kerry documentary that ran earlier this month.

Patricia Booker, a Radnor Township resident, aired Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on Oct. 4 on the Channel 21 program she produces, Radnor Review. The station reran the film three times.

Board president Jack Weiner said yesterday the station would not show the film again because of a lawsuit filed by a University of Delaware professor, Kenneth J. Campbell, contending that the film libeled him.

"At this point, it presents a risk to the station, and we're not going to participate in that risk," Weiner said. "We clearly will not run it again."

The Baederwood 4 Theater in Abington cited the same reason when it canceled its scheduled showing of the documentary for Tuesday.

Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and journalist, and his Harrisburg production company, Red White & Blue Productions, produced the film. In Stolen Honor, veterans accuse Kerry of prolonging the war and worsening their plight by testifying that soldiers had committed war atrocities in Vietnam.

Campbell said the movie libeled him because it showed him at an antiwar protest with a voice-over that says the participants were not really Vietnam vets and had been "discovered as frauds."

Charlie Gerow, a spokesman for Sherwood's production company, called the cable company's decision a result of "the well-orchestrated effort of the Kerry campaign to keep people from seeing Stolen Honor."

He called Campbell a Kerry "sympathizer" and implied that he may have filed the suit at the campaign's urging.

MORE (10/22/04): Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that even the New York Times comments on the lawsuit, recognizing (if grudgingly) that Stolen Honor has a legitimate story to tell.

....one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.

Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.

UPDATE (10/24/04): Via Roger Simon, I see the the Wall Street Journal has weighed in, noting that the press is so blinded by anti-Bush partisanship that they're reduced to supporting the chilling of free speech:

What's astonishing here is that this legal-political double team has gone on with barely a whimper of protest from the rest of the media. In fact, it is being celebrated as a defeat for all of those right-wing scoundrels who support President Bush. We understand that most of the press corps is liberal and desperately wants Mr. Kerry to win. Editors and producers may let that distort their coverage, but they usually aren't so blinded by partisanship that they can't see their own self-interest.

Now that this trial lawyer-government precedent has been set, who's to stop it if it next turns, as eventually it will, on the New York Times, or CBS? One of the most important protections that a free press has is independent corporate ownership, but what if the Nixon Administration had unleashed its lawyer friends and government pension funds on the Times Company when it was publishing the Pentagon Papers, or the Washington Post when it was digging into Watergate? If the standard now is that stirring controversy is a fraud against shareholders because it may cost ad revenue, a lot more media owners than Sinclair are going to become political targets.