Q. This is a frivolous lawsuit, isn't it ?

A. No. This lawsuit is about a product that is sold to a consumer as one thing, but it turns out to be something entirely different. Something dangerously different. Dangerous because this kind of alleged propaganda designed to promote hatred, inevitably leads to criminal violence against the object of that hatred, and also runs the risk of inciting violence because of Drive's attack on Judaism.  Similar attacks on Islam have resulted in numerous deaths.

A frivolous lawsuit is one in which there is no good faith basis in the facts or the law to support a claim, or that there is no good faith basis to make a claim that the law should be changed, or extended  to support the claim.

Q. Doesn't the film company have a right to make any kind of movie they want under the First Amendment ?

A. The First Amendment  does not protect any kind of speech. Speech that incites violence, defamatory speech, copyright infringing speech, subliminal speech, speech promoting criminal activity, etc.. do not merit First Amendment protection. Misleading advertising speech can be prohibited by the States, which is what is alleged here, as well as subliminal speech. Plaintiff is not asking to have the movie banned, but rather the lawsuit is asking for damages based on the material misleading advertising, and injunctive action to correct the misleading advertising .

Q. Aren't other minorities, such as Italians in Mafia movies,  portrayed as badly as the Jews in Drive ?

A. No. Just because a bad guy is of a certain minority, or even a group of bad guys are of a certain minority, it does not mean that the film is anti-xxxx, where xxx is whatever minority the bad guys belong to. To avoid accusations of racism, Hollywood generally shows at least one member of that minority in a good light, and/or the bad guys have some interesting redeeming human characteristics. In addition, historical context is important. The mafia was primarily Italian/Sicilian, and the purple gang of Detroit was Jewish, and Nazis controlled Germany in WWII, so historical context has to be considered.

We actually root for the Godfather and even Tony Soprano.

On the other hand, Drive is Driven by a raging hatred of Jews. Examine the book Drive, it is actually philo-Semitic. Who would take a book, where the Jewish characters are portrayed in a human way, and then "Nazify" the book into a movie that goes out of its way to impart every Nazi anti-Semitic stereotype into the movie ? And if that is not bad enough, why is the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda subliminal, other than because of a raging hatred of Jews ?

Q. Name some movies where the Jews are bad, but that is not anti-Semitic ?

Once Upon A Time In America, Bugsy, Godfather I and II, Casino, Goodfellows, All Good Things, The Believer,  to name a few. In each of the preceding movies, there was at least one good Jew, and/or even the bad Jews were portrayed in a human way, with some humanity, or redeeming qualities, unlike the Jews in Drive.

Q. Was Passion of The Christ Anti-Semitic ?

A. Passion of the Christ was based on an interpretation of the Christian Bible. Many of the Jews were portrayed in a positive way, including Jesus. I have not seen the movie, but my guess would be that it is not anti-Semitic.

Q. How come so many people that watched the film Drive apparently did not see the Anti-Semitism that is alleged by the Plaintiff?

A. Effective anti-Semitic propaganda, like any good propaganda, hides the fact that it is propaganda. The same thing applies to effective advertising, which is a form of propaganda. For propaganda to work, it must take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the intended audience.

Americans are not the same as Germans in 1940. The Germans of 1940, were repulsed by the "in your face" propaganda of The Eternal Jew. The more subtle Jud Suss had a much broader appeal because the anti-Semitism was intertwined with an arguably interesting story. In fact, Jud Suss was marketed two different ways depending on the target audience. For the rabid Nazi anti-Semites, the advertising stressed the evil Jew (right poster):

[caption id="attachment_204" align="alignnone" width="366" caption="The green Suss appeals to the already anti-Semitic"][/caption]

For the folks that were not anti-Semites, the advertising stressed the drama, costumes, music, sexual innuendo, and historic context of Jud Suss (left poster).

However, even though Jud Suss was mild compared to The Eternal Jew, a film as blatantly anti-Semitic as Jud Suss would be rejected by Americans today. That is why the Jew hatred in Drive is much more subtle, much more subliminal and under the surface. But that is what makes Drive such an effective Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda film. For the Jew haters, there is enough there to re-enforce their hatred of Jews. For the non Jew haters, and even for Jews, the movie subtly, yet consistently associates Jews and Judaism with bad things, and the murder of Jews and the destruction of Judaism (ie the  subliminal and symbolic Baptisms, glorious music, heavenly glows etc.., ), with good things.

Drive introduces Nazi style anti-Semitic propaganda for the "mainstream" in America, in as effective of a manner as possible. As more such outrages are produced, such Nazi style anti-Semitic propaganda will not seem so shocking and outrageous. History, and the current intense anti-Semitism in many countries around the world has proven this.

Another very important point is that the trailer actually affects how one interprets the film, at least consciously. If the trailer  gives no indication of anti-Semitism, then the anti-Semitism will be much less noticeable.

Q. Any precedent for this type of case ?

A. The closest case I believe is Gilmore v Beuna Vista, involving the subliminal in Disney animated features. After the Judge ruled that subliminal content is not entitled to First Amendment protection, the parties settled. We have alleged numerous subliminal content in Drive. The Disney movies had very little subliminal content in each movie.