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

[woolfe9998]

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.

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]

I'm going to bet that there was a contract which would disallow such a suit.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm going to bet that there was a contract which would disallow such a suit.

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.

 

[Paratus]

It’s satire and will likely be ruled as such.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Haha this should be fun

 

[urvile]

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.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz]

This thread made me think of this:

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

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]

This thread made me think of this:

LMAO that's hilarious.

 

[cytg111]

Sacha be like "Winning!!!" right about now ... You cant buy this kind of press. Gold. Nuggets.

 

[urvile]

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.

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

 

[woolfe9998]

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

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.

 

[zzyzxroad]

What sort of information can Cohen get during discovery in a case like this?

 

[woolfe9998]

What sort of information can Cohen get during discovery in a case like this?

There is virtually no limit to what you can get in discovery. It may not all be admissible at trial, but you can get almost anything you want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is there any provision in the that allows for libel because somebody deserves it?

 

[woolfe9998]

Is there any provision in the that allows for libel because somebody deserves it?

No one "deserves" to have lies told about them. If the person is bad enough to make you think they "deserve" it, then the truth will suffice.

 

[baydude]

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?

 

[IronWing]

Discovery should put the fun in fundamentalist.

 

[zzyzxroad]

There is virtually no limit to what you can get in discovery. It may not all be admissible at trial, but you can get almost anything you want.

I sort of thought that. Hope Cohen has several long conversations with Alex's ex.

 

[sactoking]

Didn't he back out of suing his accusers because it would open him up to discovery?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

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?

 

[who?]

The word pedophile only applies if the victim hasn't been through puberty yet.

 

[trenchfoot]

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.

 

[Viper1j]

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.

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