Judge Roy Moore Sued Sacha Baron Cohen for Defamation; It's About to Backfire

[hurl]

From the article:

Almost two years ago, to the day, one of Sacha Baron Cohen‘s characters from the satirical show Who Is America? sat down with a very confused Roy Moore. Moore, a Christian Nationalist and former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, nearly became a U.S. senator years ago until allegations of child molestation derailed his campaign. He eventually lost to Democrat Doug Jones.

In the segment, you can see that Cohen’s character brags about (fictional) new Israeli technology that protects children by sounding an alarm when it’s in the vicinity of a pedophile. When Cohen uses it on himself, nothing happens, but when the wand approaches Moore, it makes a noise. (Get it?)
...
That lawsuit hasn’t gone away; there was a court hearing on Friday. But it’s clear that Cohen’s legal team has no intention of backing down. They were hoping to have this whole case dismissed on free speech grounds — it’s just satire — but the judge didn’t want to do that. Now they’re trying a different approach.

Essentially, their argument is that they couldn’t have committed defamation if Roy Moore is indeed a pedophile. Therefore, according to Courthouse News, they want to use “truth as an absolute defense against libel claims.”

“If we were to proceed with full discovery … then we would need to be getting discovery on any and all issues and claims here, including substantial truth,” said [Cohen’s lawyer] Elizabeth McNamara, a partner at the firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

“There would need to be full discovery on substantial truth,” McNamara emphasized. “There would need to be full discovery on actual malice.”

What does that mean in English? They want to speak with Moore’s alleged victims, get them on the record, and show that Moore really did molest them. (So much for any statute of limitations.)


More at link
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/02/judge-roy-moore-sued-sacha-baron-cohen-for-defamation-its-about-to-backfire/

[Nevilledog]

1. Ha!

[Dem2theMax]

2. Brilliant!

[lettucebe]

25. Second vote for Brilliant!

[Lootsafe]

3. Cheers

Good on Sasha for doing that. Love his work.

[SheltieLover]

4. Excellent! 👏👏👏👏

[unblock]

5. The standard of proof in civil cases is merely preponderance of evidence.

Much easier to show than the criminal court standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Basically, Cohen only needs to show it's more likely than not that moore is a pedophile (or more likely than not that the show didn't damage Moore's reputation as his reputation already had accusations of pedophilia.)

[Disaffected]

7. But Cohen is the defendant

The lower burden of proof would therefore seem to help Moore - I don't think it works the other way around.

[unblock]

10. I mean compared to prosecuting Moore for pedophilia

Cohen benefits from a lower standard of proof than someone trying to prosecute Moore in criminal court would have.

Yes, I suppose Moore benefits from the lower standard of proof in civil court compared to what a prosecutor would have to show to convict Cohen of some criminal charge, though I don't know what that charge would be.

[CaptYossarian]

13. What if more victims come forward?

In this case, a civil one, the ridiculous 5-year SOL wouldn't matter.

[Disaffected]

14. The charge is defamation

It is directed at Cohen, not Moore. The lower burden of proof therefore benefits Moore, not the defendant.

[unblock]

15. Please read the post you replied to

The point is Cohen does not have to prove pedophilia beyond a reasonable doubt

[Disaffected]

18. The more salient point is

Moore does not have to prove defamation beyond a reasonable doubt. And I would contend he was probably defamed whether or not he is a pedophile.

[unblock]

20. It's true that Moore doesn't have to prove defamation beyond a reasonable doubt

But insulted doesn't mean defamed. The fact that the pedophilia allegations were out there already hugely plays in Cohen's favor. That is, Moore's reputation already was tainted, so it becomes hard to argue that Cohen specifically made it worse, and that any damage he suffered from a bad reputation was due to Cohen and not the myriad news reports of the same thing.

Also, the standard of proof for defamation is actually higher in this case because Moore is a public figure. So it's actually not really preponderance of evidence. Moore has to show that Cohen had a reckless disregard for the truth.

I think the only way moore wins is if he can show damage specifically from people who believed he wasn't a pedophile until they saw the show and completely believed the wand "technology" was real proof of pedophilia. And probably that Cohen knew people would believe it, as to me the whole joke was that such technology was obviously ridiculous.

[Disaffected]

22. OK, however this case shakes out,

it seems to me that both parties have a tough row to hoe. Moore, as you point out, and Cohen as I suspect trying to prove Moore is a pedophile won't be easy as, IIRC, the claims to such are long standing and he has never been tried let alone convicted of such an offense (IIRC).

I'll be looking forward to hearing the outcome and the judge's reasoning which ever way it goes.

[unblock]

23. It will be fascinating

Personally I don't understand why moore sued. Best case he makes a few bucks after legal fees without really clearing his name much. Mostly it just keeps him in the news as a possible pedo.

Worst case is he loses because for reasons having little to do with whether or not he actually is a pedophile. Such as not being able to prove damages or reckless disregard for the truth. Then people will *really* think he's a pedo even if he actually isn't.

[Lasher]

29. I wish I could rec a subthread.

Interesting discussion, both of you.

[StarfishSaver]

33. He doesn't have to prove defamation beyond a reasonable doubt, but this is a different question

Defamation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff must prove several elements to prevail, including that the statement was false.

Often that is done simply by testimony of the plaintiff, especially where one must prove the negative, such as not being a pedophile, since it's difficult to prove that one is NOT a pedophile other than with the absence of evidence of pedophilia. If no one provides evidence otherwise, the jury can find that the statement was false.

But a defendant can raise defenses to a defamation claim. One of the available defenses is truth. When they raise truth as a defense, the burden shifts to them to prove their claim wasn't false. That burden can be met with a mere preponderance of the evidence.

So while, initially, all Moore needs to do to prove defamation is to claim he's not a pedophile and show he was damaged by the allegation, it doesn't end there. The burden will then shift to Cohen to prove that Moore IS a pedophile (or that he had a reasonable basis to believe is). The standard of proof for Cohen's burden is preponderance of the evidence. All he has to do is present one or two examples and he's met his burden and Moore's case fails.

The last thing Moore wants, I suspect, is for this case to go too far into discovery and definitely not to trial.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Don't civil cases only require a majority of jurors to make a finding?

They don’t have to be unanimous, and they can find in favor of either the defendant or plaintiff.

[unblock]

21. usually still unanimous

all federal civil cases and most state civil cases require unanimous verdicts.

in some states (the site below says one-third), it's only majority. it may also depend on the amount of money involved:

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/must-all-jury-verdicts-be-unanimous.html

[StarfishSaver]

35. It depends on the jurisdiction

[TlalocW]

6. Even if they do talk to his victims

And they corroborate that he did make advances, etc. couldn't Moore still win on the technicality that makes him a hebephile or an ephebophile?

TlalocW

[tblue37]

9. That's what I was thinking. nt

[TlalocW]

12. I don't know if they'll be smart enough to think of this

Or if Cohen can get it entered into records that he just meant that Moore liked young girls, but if in the end it's not going Moore's way, it would be better to admit to this than be branded a pedophile... and technically better to be branded a pedophile than a pederast as the latter is the acting upon the former.

TlalocW

[RockRaven]

11. Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that common usage rather than dictionary definitions

would be the standard allowed, when defending the use of the word.

[live love laugh]

30. Aren't those just subcategories? nt

[TlalocW]

37. Depends on what you think they're sub-categories of

They're not sub-categories of pedophilia if that's what you mean. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Hebephile for adolescents who have just started puberty, generally 11 to 14-years-old, and ephebophile is for mid to late adolescents from 15 to 19-years-old. Pedophilia has just become a catch-all word for attraction to young kids, where young can mean various things depending on the person. I've even heard interesting discussions about how we don't control who or what we are attracted to, pedophiles who never act on their desires because they realize the other party would not be consenting adults and any relationship would be traumatic are to be admired, but the line there would be too thin for the general public.

And after saying all that, perhaps some of them are sub-categories. According to Wikipedia: Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[4] A person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.

So amending what I was saying, Moore would want to fight to have himself classified as an ephebophile instead of a pedophile, assuming the trial was becoming a worst case scenario for him, since hebephile can overlap with pedophilia.

But then, I'm not any kind of mental health person, and I could be talking out my ass.

TlalocW

[Wounded Bear]

8. It's not libel if it's true...

[MyOwnPeace]

16. Such SLIME!!!!!

And some people actually want this guy to represent them in government?

[AZ8theist]

17. "Judge" Roy Moore.....

Can't he just crawl back under the rock from which he came??

[marble falls]

24. Self-hoisted by his own petard. Ouch. That's going to hurt.

[TexasTowelie]

26. I remember that video.

Cohen did a wonderful job proving that Moore is an idiot. I was laughing throughout the video clip.

[Lord Ludd]

27. There go da judge! nt

[AdamGG]

28. Great success!

[oasis]

31. Sweet!

[The Wizard]

32. Did a Judge

issue an order banning Moore from a shopping mall as he was known to be a stalker of children?

[Pepsidog]

34. And to think the legal genius that is Roy Moore was a State Supreme Court Chief Justice.

[USALiberal]

36. The Borat movie was the funniest thing I have ever seen! nt