MovieChat Forums > District 9 (2009) Discussion > Was this a plot hole in the ending or di...

Was this a plot hole in the ending or did I miss something?

posted 8 years ago by RynoII
2 replies | jump to latest

In the end, they say in the subtitles that the one guy is put on trial for revealing the military company's dirty secrets to the public.

But why would the company take him to court over it? If they take him to court, all the company's dirty secrets will be made even more public, and on an official trial record, rather than just some lone guy spilling the beans.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the company to either kill him, or pay him hush money, rather than making more of a public spectacle out of it, that would incriminate the company even more?

[–] Tokyo-Vigilante 8 years ago

I've thought about that too.

it could be similar to the Julian Assange thing.
Even though the secrets should be heard, if the offended party hasn't been charged with wrong doing, then they can make a claim against the revealer of the secrets.

it's probably like a legal technicality thing (and a sign of our times).

like, if I raped someone, but got away with it because I didn't get caught and charged before the statute of limitations thing ran out. but you then went around telling people that I raped someone, I could probably sue you for causing harm to my reputation.

I don't really know what i'm talking about, but I can imagine this kind of scenario.

Maybe they're trying to make the point that whatever happens these days, if you try and mess with the big corporations, you're going to be the one who loses.

My cat can eat a whole watermelon!

[–] thisnameinuse 8 years ago

The MNU also might be extended state secret status, and the trial might be held in secret where the public can't get to know all the other secrets from discovery.

————
You're makin'... me... beat... up... GRASS!