Law Jury: Democratic PAC defamed Roy Moore, awards him $8.2M

lilelvis

Church of the Inner Tube
Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
10,642
Reaction score
15,744
It seems the verdict is based on editing together of statements in an anti-Moore add that, in the Jury's eyes, defamed Ol' Roy and were cause for an $8.2M award.
The article claims it all boiled down to Roy being banned from a local mall for dogging teenage girls. Roy say's he was never banned. The Jury agreed with Roy in Federal Court.
The PAC relied on statements from a mall security officer that claims to have banned Ol' Roy from the premises, and a couple of Roy's teenage muse' that worked at the mall. Best I can glean, as a lazy and time limited dogger, Roy was 32 at the time.
The PAC believes the award will be overturned on appeal.
So, is this an indication of society's recently found, and at times enforced, leniency toward people who have similar styles of attracting romantic interests as 'Ol Roy being reflected in the legal system, or is this just an Alabama Federal Jury doing Alabama things?

Has Roy become part of a protected class or is it purely partisan?

Here are a few slanted sources, fwiw...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...efamed-roy-moore-awards-him-2482m/ar-AA10BQiB

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roy-moore-wins-defamation-case-democratic-pac-jury-awards-him-8-2m

https://www.independentsentinel.com/judge-roy-moore-vindicated-wins-8-2-million-defamation-lawsuit/

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/15/former-ala-gov-candidate-roy-moore-wins-8-2m-libel-verdict/
 
Sounds like he's getting $8M because he technically wasn't banned from the mall, not because the women's accusations were taken back or proven to be false. I'm assuming they didn't say he was convicted of anything, so this is entirely based on that technicality. That's cute.
 
Did they lie?
Did they know they were lying?
Did they lie anyway?
Seems like they just spun testimony together to make it appear worse, and that he wasn’t officially banned from the mall.
 
Seems like they just spun testimony together to make it appear worse, and that he wasn’t officially banned from the mall.
Do you think that the security guy that said he was banned truly believed it? I would be willing to bet that the security guard would have been whipping some ass if he saw creepy Roy fucking around at his mall.
 
Do you think that the security guy that said he was banned truly believed it? I would be willing to bet that the security guard would have been whipping some ass if he saw creepy Roy fucking around at his mall.
I would assume he believed it.
I'm not sticking up for Roy here. I'm do not agree that his kind of activity should be condoned in any way. There are sectors of our society that do and punish people for speaking ill of it, however..
 
The accusations still stand though. It doesn't even sound like the mall ban was a complete fabrication, just not a fully verifiable claim.
Correct. I’m surprised at the amount of damages. They may have pumped it up, but he’s still a turd.
 
They could have told the truth that makes him seem like a bit of a creep, but apparently that wasn't good enough.

Only read the reason link, and it wasn't about whether or not he was banned from the mall. He asked out a 16 year old, which is creepy but still legal, so the PAC spliced together 2 separate quotes to suggest he was banned from a mall for trying to have sex with a 14 year old, which he didn't.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like he's getting $8M because he technically wasn't banned from the mall, not because the women's accusations were taken back or proven to be false. I'm assuming they didn't say he was convicted of anything, so this is entirely based on that technicality. That's cute.
In other words, he was awarded $8M because they lied.
 
In other words, he was awarded $8M because they lied.
It would be nice if the media reigned in their slander a bit. They’re afforded broad protection under the 1-A to inform the populous, not sway them to their personal or corporate beliefs.
Telling the truth about Roy was enough.
 
It would be nice if the media reigned in their slander a bit. They’re afforded broad protection under the 1-A to inform the populous, not sway them to their personal or corporate beliefs.
Telling the truth about Roy was enough.
Regardless of what you think, reading the 1A's conception of media to be strictly a conduit for u neutral information is incredibly ahistorical given that idea of journalism didn't exist until the 20th century.
 
Regardless of what you think, reading the 1A's conception of media to be strictly a conduit for u neutral information is incredibly ahistorical given that idea of journalism didn't exist until the 20th century.
Huh?
 
I think this gets overturned, he's a public figure so that's not in his favor when it comes to defamation. If you look at what was said it's basically that he was approaching teenage girls for sex, one he approached was 14 and he asked her out for ice cream or something like that at the mall, but asked her on a date like two years later when she was 16.
 
I think this gets overturned, he's a public figure so that's not in his favor when it comes to defamation. If you look at what was said it's basically that he was approaching teenage girls for sex, one he approached was 14 and he asked her out for ice cream or something like that at the mall, but asked her on a date like two years later when she was 16.
We’ll, that’s the PAC’s version anyway. It appears that the truth was much milder than “approaching for sex”. Apparently the girls mother was present.
Anyhow, I’d be surprised if the judgement isn’t overturned. Seems excessive.
 
The idea that journalists are unbiased observers who merely write observations only began in the 20th century. Publications before that were largely opinion oriented and closely tied to political parties.
 
It would be nice if the media reigned in their slander a bit. They’re afforded broad protection under the 1-A to inform the populous, not sway them to their personal or corporate beliefs.
Telling the truth about Roy was enough.

Political and corporate beliefs are absolutely part of the 1st though.
 
The idea that journalists are unbiased observers who merely write observations only began in the 20th century. Publications before that were largely opinion oriented and closely tied to political parties.
Yes, they used to be way down and dirty. We are now in the 21st century. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Back
Top