Judge Roy Moore Sues Sacha Baron Cohen For Ruining His Immaculate Reputation
from the CAN-I-HAVE-SOME-MONEY-NOW dept
Judge Roy Moore -- perhaps most famous for his (alleged) predilection for jailbait -- is suing entertainer Sacha Baron Cohen for somehow ruining his spotless reputation with the ol' libelslander. Moore is represented by stunt lawyer Larry Klayman, which assures this complaint will be greeted with a heavy sigh by the presiding judge, and that a not-insignificant amount of the billable hours will be eaten up by Klayman getting admonished by the court.
As can probably be inferred without even reading the complaint [PDF], Moore got duped by Cohen to appear on his show, regrets being duped, and thinks Cohen (and Showtime/CBS) should pay him real money for tarnishing his otherwise squeaky-clean reputation. Let's just see what he's asking for…
[...] actual, compensatory, and punitive damages in excess of $95,000,000 USD, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief that this Court may deem just and proper.
Moore, with the assistance of Klayman, figures his appearance on Cohen's new show did nearly $100 million in damage to Moore's reputation -- one pre-sullied by sexual misconduct targeting teenaged girls allegations. Moore estimates his reputation is $95 million worse off, thanks to his inability to vet requests for public appearances.
Here's how all the "defamation" went down, according to the complaint.
In order to fraudulently induce Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore to travel to Washington, D.C., where filming was to and did take place, and where the majority of acts pled herein occurred, on or about February 14, 2018, Defendant Cohen and his agents falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that Yerushalayim TV – which does not actually exist - was the producer and broadcaster of the show that Judge Moore would appear on, instead of the actual network that the show that later appeared on Showtime. In addition, Defendant Cohen and his agents falsely and fraudulently represented that Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore were both being invited to Washington, D.C., for Judge Moore to receive an award for his strong support of Israel in commemoration of its 70th anniversary as a nation state. This ceremony, and presentation of this award, Defendant Cohen falsely and fraudulently represented was to occur during the interview.
Somehow this is Cohen's fault (and by extension, his co-defendants' fault -- CBS and Showtime) even though Moore admits he did nothing to ensure he wasn't being led astray by a nonexistent television station.
Had Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore known that Defendant Cohen had fraudulently induced Judge Moore into this interview, which as a “set up” to harm and thus damage Plaintiffs and the rest of their entire family, Judge Moore would not have agreed to appear. Plaintiffs relied on and had reason to rely on Defendant Cohen’s and his agents’ representations including Defendants Showtime and CBS, which he was led to believe were truthful and he had no reason to doubt.
As Cohen has proven time and time again, nothing drops public officials' guard faster than appealing to their ego. Cohen fronted a nonexistent production company and offered Moore an award for his lifetime of service to Israel. Having been properly flattered, Moore never thought to question why he was being given an award for something he's not particularly known for. Nothing in his Wikipedia page or bio suggests he's ever had much interest in Israel, beyond the usual affinity sported by fundamentalists who refer to it as the "Holy Land" in passing.
This point is reiterated in numerous paragraphs, as if being too stupid to question bizarrely-tangential generosity out of nowhere was an actionable tort.
Then the complaint gets to the actual defamation allegations. And they're quite the read. A shot for every "false" or "fraud" in this lawsuit will see you hospitalized for alcohol poisoning by the 10th page.
Defendant Cohen’s character falsely and fraudulently introduced a false and fraudulent “device” supposedly invented by the Israeli Army to detect pedophiles. During the segment, Defendant Cohen’s “device” – as part of the false and fraudulent routine – purports to detect Judge Moore as a sex offender, thus defaming him.
Hahaha it's almost as if someone were making some crude commentary on the sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Moore. You know, the allegations about pedophilia and sex offending. It was in all the papers. This -- THIS! -- says Klayman, is defamation. And he says it as only Klayman can: by providing the defendants a defense.
This false and fraudulent portrayal and mocking of Judge Moore as a sex offender, on national and international television, which was widely broadcast in this district on national television and worldwide, has severely harmed Judge Moore’s reputation and caused him, Mrs. Moore, and his entire family severe emotional distress, as well as caused and will cause Plaintiffs financial damage.
Let's give Ken White/Popehat the floor for a moment:
By adding "mocked" to that sentence, Klayman is beclowning himself, which is quite a feat for someone who comes pre-beclowned.
He's basically saying "the utterly obvious and inevitable defense to this is correct, and here I am confirming it."
Only something that can reasonably be taken as a provable statement of fact can be defamatory. Mockery is by definition not defamatory -- like ridicule, insult, etc. When a public figure is at hand, it's also not, by definition, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On and on the complaint goes about "reckless" and "malice" and "defamation per se" and all of it doesn't matter because the defense is right there in the accusations. This was commentary on Roy Moore's pre-existing reputation, which was already in the gutter thanks to numerous accusations directly on point with a fake Mossad tool's "sex offender" determination.
The downside of this case is that if it survives the first motion to dismiss, it's going to chew up some time and cash. It was filed in the DC federal court, which has already decided it doesn't need to apply Washington, DC's anti-SLAPP law at the federal level. This means the case might go on longer than it needs to, even though it's crystal clear Moore's just trying to exact litigious revenge for allowing himself to be suckered in by a little flattery.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, dc, defamation, larry klayman, roy moore, sacha baron cohen, slapp suits
Companies: cbs, showtime
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
But the case is just a hook for smearing more of your characteristic CRAP. It's all you've got, you little monkey.
Techdirt can't resist repeating totally unsubstantiated allegations about a "conservative". This is simply another instance in which allegations were made up -- apparently paid for -- for political purposes.
While you overlook vastly more substantive allegations against KEVIN SPACY, SIMMONS, and others, with HARVEY WEINSTEIN actually INDICTED.
But the "fake news" tactic such as Techdirt repeats is going to provoke a reaction even from those more or less Deep State / Establishment creatures (including those neo-con / Zionists with"R" after their name), because already out of control -- and losing effect against targets of the left, haven't turned up any actual evidence.
Remember the Omarosa book? No, no one does already. This week it's Woodward with yet more catty but substance-less allegations.
You little allegators who inhabit the marshy areas around the swamp are simply foolish. This piece has NO effect outside of exciting the few fanboys, and overall can only drive readers away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that Tim Cushing is a "little monkey?" Or is this mockery and therefore not defamation?
Techdirt shouldn't repeat unsubstantiated allegations, and yet you are perfectly fine to assume (and state on Techdirt) it does so because it was paid to do so for political reasons?
Have you searched Techdirt for the keywords Spacy, Simmons and Weinstein? You may find the results educational.
I know, I'm probably falling for satire by this point, but wow... you need to get out more, even if this is all meant as satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
Really
Ain't
Perceptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only person who harmed Moore’s reputation—or what was left of it before the Cohen “interview”, in any case—was Moore himself. Whatever Cohen did to Moore in that “interview” was ultimately revealed to be a satirical potshot at the allegations surrounding Moore. Nobody forced Moore to take part in that “interview”; he could have just as easily said “no” well before the ruse was up. Nobody made any actual claim that Moore was a pedophile; Cohen’s stunt with the “pedo detector” was clearly satirical in nature, not a direct accusation.
Whatever “case” Moore thinks he has here is all in his head. The ruse was done to set Moore up for a satirical “interview”, not a confession to a crime or a confrontation between Moore and one of his accusers. Why should Sacha Baron Cohen be punished for Roy Moore taking the bait for as long as he did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but...but...but...
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims
However, the allegations against Mr. Moore are hardly unsubstantiated and I can't see how you'd feel it is any way inappropriate to mention those allegations when covering this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
While you overlook vastly more substantive allegations against KEVIN SPACY, SIMMONS, and others, with HARVEY WEINSTEIN actually INDICTED.
Which are for sexual harassment. Which is not a topic the website covers.
I do, however, recall you cheering on Harvey Weinstein because he was from Hollywood.
Nice to see how your loyalties (or lack thereof) lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
7 months....
A case which involved a giant 7 foot squirrel holding a sign saying "Eat Shit, Bob" and "Kiss my ass"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 7 months....
Bob Murray's defeat left a small hole in his heart next to the huge one that Otis Wright left behind...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False claims and actual harm. There's a case. We'll SEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And also means expenses can't be recouped once he inevitably loses. Talk about justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There might be enough there (after Discovery) to result in a judgement that WILL allow him to recoup costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do wonder if they have thought this through to the trial. Cohen will be taking the stand. Perhaps there will be a jury. Perhaps cameras in the courtroom. Clips will be shown repeatedly. Late night talk shows will be covering the highlights. Internet memes will abound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And preferably spends the entire trial shouting "Satire!" and "Parody!" at random intervals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: money miners
[https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/11/15/moores-mess-nonprofit/](https://nonprofitquar terly.org/2017/11/15/moores-mess-nonprofit/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone know if this is the case in UK law? Thanks in advance, chaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hp Printer
Without some form of content moderation this sort of stuff could easily flood the site as this tech specialist exercises his "Free Speech" right to advertise here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hp Printer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame the victim, shall we?
As to the substance of it, well, Cohen pretty well claimed Moore was a sex offender. That, as far as it goes, would be defamatory, and the fact that he wasn't the first one to make those claims wouldn't make it non-defamatory. This is, perhaps, not quite so ridiculous a suit as you suggest.
Of course, if Moore actually does litigate this, it will involve discovery into whether those claims are true. He may not want to go there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame the victim, shall we?
What part of that is defamatory?
If a public figure has been accused of a crime, and the details of the accusation are well-known, an individual opining that the public figure is guilty of the crime is, indeed, not defamatory.
Permit me to demonstrate.
OJ Simpson murdered his wife.
Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist.
Dick Cheney committed war crimes.
None of those statements is defamatory, because all of them concern public figures, the accusations against them are common knowledge, and I am clearly expressing my opinion of their guilt based on those accusations, and not implying that I am privy to any kind of secret, undisclosed information.
But it's awfully interesting that you would describe Roy Moore as "the victim". I would save that particular descriptor for his victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame the victim, shall we?
None of it. But to harp on how stupid Moore was, and ignore how dishonest Cohen was, seems a little, well, one-sided.
All of these are, broadly speaking, defamatory, presuming they are false. None of those people would have a chance of winning a defamation action against you, though, because they wouldn't be able to show actual malice (which will be fatal to Moore as well, if nothing else kills the case first).
"Opinion based on disclosed facts" only gets you so far--for it to work, you need to at least mention the known facts on which you base those opinions.
And lest it be unclear, I'm not saying I think Moore can win the case (he can't--inability to show actual malice will doom it). But it's a far cry from the vague, thuggish buffoonery that characterizes most defamation claims/lawsuits that we see around here.
Nice deflection, but irrelevant. Whatever he did or didn't do, he was still a victim (a foolish victim, to be sure, but a victim nonetheless) of Cohen's antics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame the victim, shall we?
There used to be a programme called Brass Eye that pulled similar stunts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w
Helping public figures to make fools of themselves is a time-honoured tradition and I've yet to see one who hasn't had it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame the victim, shall we?
Nonsense. The details of the allegations against Simpson, Weinstein, and Cheney are common knowledge, and it can be trivially assumed that the audience for my comments is familiar with them.
The context in which I stated them -- in an online comments section -- also works in my favor, as remarks made in such a context are typically understood to be statements of opinion rather than factual reporting.
Statements made on a satirical television program by a known provocateur who has disguised himself in order to trick public figures into humiliating themselves have even less presumption of being factual statements.
No, it isn't.
...You...really don't see any irony in following that first sentence with that second one, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He doesn’t have to be “sweet”. Cohen lied about his identity and his intent, yes—and yet Moore still, willingly and (I assume) without coercion, agreed to meet with Cohen and go on camera for that “interview”. Cohen baited Moore into that mockery; Moore’s decision to take that bait, however, is his fault alone.
Plenty of other people had done the same thing well before Cohen mocked Moore with a clearly satirical “pedophile detector”. That bit was designed to be a potshot, albeit a below-the-belt shot, at Moore’s now-ruined reputation.
Which is why this lawsuit will inevitably be withdrawn as soon as enough time passes for people to forget he filed it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not 95 million dollars worth of time. Not even close.
But I can't see how 'yes, I did the things I did' is anything but a 100% guarantee of losing a libelslander lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not a lawyer - but it would seem to me that Moore might have a case against Cohen for lying and wasting his time.
You can't waste someone's time. Cohen prolly had to pay Moore to appear, and pay for his travel and expenses. I can't say for sure but that is typically how such things work. You show up, sign a waiver, stay in a nice hotel, get fed, and go home.
Now if Moore had agreed to do the interview and stormed out early, technically he'd be wasting Cohen's time, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I can't speak for the state of Klayman's mind, another vexatious defamation-suit filer I've read about kept shoveling that term into his lawsuits because he believed it meant something along the lines of "if you accuse me of anything that sounds like a crime, then it's automatically defamation and I automatically deserve to be paid damages" which is nowhere near how it actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its true, we don't f*** kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update 3 years later: Sacha Baron Cohen Defeats Roy Moore Suit Over Pedophile Detector
Dismissed at the summary judgement stage. You may be shocked to learn that the Internet Lawyers in this thread who insisted that Moore had a real case were incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]