• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Roy Moore files defamation suit against Sacha Baron Cohen, CBS, Showtime

woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
The lawsuit arose from a July 29 broadcast where Baron Cohen, disguised as fictional Israeli anti-terrorism expert Erran Morad, interviewed Moore and demonstrated a supposed "pedophile detector" that beeped when waved near him.
Click to expand...

Full story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...aron-cohen-cbs-showtime/ar-BBMViFQ?ocid=ientp

So how is demonstrating an obviously fictional machine called a "pedophile detector" by having it beep when it gets near Moore defamation? Under the law, defamation means telling a lie which damages someone's reputation. This wasn't a lie. It was parody. The point was that people would laugh at the absurd "pedophile detector" because they already (quite rationally) believe Moore is a pedophile. SBC isn't convincing anyone of anything because no one literally believes he has an actual machine which can detect pedophiles.

Parody has been recognized as protected by the First Amendment against defamation claims since the 80's when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt and Hustler over a mock "Compari" ad which suggested that Falwell had lost his virginity with his mother in the family outhouse. No doubt Flynt won that lawsuit because no one believed the mock ad was literally true.

What is Moore trying to accomplish here? Does he think people are less likely to think he's pedo if he gets really angry and sues a comedian? Moreover, does Moore really want a trial which could involve his accusers coming to testify under oath? If the First Amendment doesn't work here as a defense, truth is always a defense to defamation.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm going to bet that there was a contract which would disallow such a suit.
Click to expand...

No, I doubt it. You can't contract your way out of intentionally tortious conduct, only negligence. A provision which says, if I beat you to a pulp, or tell injurious lies about you, or defraud you, you can't sue, is not going to be enforceable.

It's also worth noting that insurance won't indemnify or provide defense for intentional torts. So these defendants will not have insurance coverage, though the networks may be self-insured. That may be the point. It's Trump's playbook on the media: sue them into bankruptcy to shut them up. But these media outlets have way more resources than Moore does, so I'm not seeing a coherent strategy here.
 
I would guess that the potential of being sued. Especially by someone like Moore is a known risk for Cohen and the media companies. In other words they have taken steps to mitigate the risk. In one way or another.

They may even just settle. They probably determine how much the various potential outcomes will cost and go with the cheapest and/or least reputation destroying. Trump doesn't have the money to sue CBS and Showtime into bankruptcy either.

Do you know that trump has had 4 of his businesses go bankrupt? He is still the world's greatest business man though.
 
This thread made me think of this:

DcDyUp4VQAAkdir
 
urvile said:
I would guess that the potential of being sued. Especially by someone like Moore is a known risk for Cohen and the media companies. In other words they have taken steps to mitigate the risk. In one way or another.

They may even just settle. They probably determine how much the various potential outcomes will cost and go with the cheapest and/or least reputation destroying. Trump doesn't have the money to sue CBS and Showtime into bankruptcy either.

Do you know that trump has had 4 of his businesses go bankrupt? He is still the world's greatest business man though.
Click to expand...

I don't think they settle this one. Settlement here would be a tacit admission that they told lies about Moore being a pedo, when they told no such lies, and he is very likely a pedo anyway. The better play PR wise would be to fight Moore all the way. They can probably get the suit kicked out on a summary judgment motion, but a trial involving a whole litany of Moore accusers could be even better. Settlement under circumstances like this would be to keep a plaintiff quiet. This one already has national headlines so settling looks bad unless they really think they're going to lose.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I don't think they settle this one. Settlement here would be a tacit admission that they told lies about Moore being a pedo, when they told no such lies, and he is very likely a pedo anyway. The better play PR wise would be to fight Moore all the way. They can probably get the suit kicked out on a summary judgment motion, but a trial involving a whole litany of Moore accusers could be even better. Settlement under circumstances like this would be to keep a plaintiff quiet. This one already has national headlines so settling looks bad unless they really think they're going to lose.
Click to expand...

I would imagine part of mitigating the risk would be to determine the likelihood of winning in court if they did get sued.
 
urvile said:
I would imagine part of mitigating the risk would be to determine the likelihood of winning in court if they did get sued.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, and from what I've seen so far, the defendants will either win pre-trial on First Amendment grounds, or they'll win at trial on truth grounds. The slight chance they lose at trial is better than the implication that they settled because they knew they had defamed him.
 
How will this affect all those Youtube prank videos? Don't they blur out the face of people they prank unless they sign a waiver to allow the prankster to profit from putting them in the video?
 
I think it's a bullshit lawsuit because Moore has to sue them where they live, not where he lives. That's why Sandy Hook parents had to sue Alex Jones in Texas.
 
Jhhnn said:
I think it's a bullshit lawsuit because Moore has to sue them where they live, not where he lives. That's why Sandy Hook parents had to sue Alex Jones in Texas.
Click to expand...

He sued them in federal court in DC, not in Alabama state court. Those are the rules, but it's another reason it was stupid to sue. How does Moore think he'll do with a DC jury?
 
Poor poor Roy Moore looking for exoneration, redemption and the respect and admiration he never ever had in the first place.

He's sure giving Trump a run for the money in the "who is the worst scumbag predatory creep of the century" contest currently being held by the Repub Party.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Full story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...aron-cohen-cbs-showtime/ar-BBMViFQ?ocid=ientp

So how is demonstrating an obviously fictional machine called a "pedophile detector" by having it beep when it gets near Moore defamation? Under the law, defamation means telling a lie which damages someone's reputation. This wasn't a lie. It was parody. The point was that people would laugh at the absurd "pedophile detector" because they already (quite rationally) believe Moore is a pedophile. SBC isn't convincing anyone of anything because no one literally believes he has an actual machine which can detect pedophiles.

Parody has been recognized as protected by the First Amendment against defamation claims since the 80's when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt and Hustler over a mock "Compari" ad which suggested that Falwell had lost his virginity with his mother in the family outhouse. No doubt Flynt won that lawsuit because no one believed the mock ad was literally true.

What is Moore trying to accomplish here? Does he think people are less likely to think he's pedo if he gets really angry and sues a comedian? Moreover, does Moore really want a trial which could involve his accusers coming to testify under oath? If the First Amendment doesn't work here as a defense, truth is always a defense to defamation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Good luck with that.. Maybe Donny can help him out.

Donny%20Moore%20Dating.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top