How many times does your tired old argument have to be refuted? Your idea only works if there is a perfect arbiter of "truth." There are nearly no truths in human existence; math probably comes closest, and yet even there look how many things in history were "true" based on knowledge of the time (Earth as the center of the universe is an obvious one).
You fail to consider that humans implement rules (e.g., your movie is illegal because it's not true) and humans are fundamentally corrupt, selfish creatures.
Your comment is a straw man attack, so perhaps cool it with the "tired old".
Provably false statements do not require perfect arbtration of truth.
For example, the president says something on TV, and a talking head straight-face states "that never happened". This is the current level of discourse in the USA.
The article linked cites various rebuttals (by actual scientists) of what seems like a large amount of factually incorrect information in this documentary - are you saying that the documentary actually is factual?
