The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Roy Moore Can Proceed with Libel Suit Over Allegation That He Had Solicited Sex at Mall from 14-Year-Old
Press accounts had said he “had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls” and that he had told a 14-year-old girl at the mall “she looked pretty.” "But viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, the court finds that telling viewers that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting sex from a 14-year-old Santa’s Helper is more stinging than telling viewers that Moore complimented a 14-year-old girl on her appearance or telling them more generally that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting young girls.”
From Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, decided Tuesday by Judge Corey Maze (N.D. Ala.):
[Roy] Moore won a run-off election to become the Republican nominee for the vacant seat in September 2017. Moore squared off against Democratic nominee Doug Jones in December….
On November 9, 2017, The Washington Post published an article about four women who alleged that Moore sought relationships with them when he was in his 30s and they were in their teens. Relevant here, the article stated, "Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa's helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade."
On November 12, 2017, the New American Journal published an article by Glynn Wilson that alleged, "Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls." On November 13, 2017, The New Yorker published an article by Charles Bethea that repeated Wilson's statement. The New Yorker article also stated that Bethea had spoken to "more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told [Bethea] that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls." The New Yorker article also stated that Greg Legat thought the ban "started around 1979." On November 13, 2017, AL.com also published an article that stated, "Wendy Miller told The Post that she was 14 and working as Santa's helper at the Gadsden Mall in 1977 when Moore first spoke with her and told her she looked pretty. Two years later, when she was 16, he asked her out on dates, although her mother wouldn't let her go."
Over the next few weeks, various news agencies circulated these allegations: (1) allegations that Moore sexually harassed or assaulted several more women when they were teenagers; and (2) allegations that Moore was banned from the Gadsden Mall because he sexually harassed or solicited sex from young girls. For example, The New York Times published an article that read, "An article in The New Yorker asserted that Mr. Moore had been barred from the mall in his hometown, Gadsden, for bothering young women, a memory that many in the town said they shared, though no one has found direct evidence." …
Defendant SMP—a federally registered political action committee that supported Moore's opponent, Doug Jones—helped create a television advertisement that quoted previously reported allegations ("the shopping mall ad"). The parties disagree about Defendant Waterfront's involvement in creating the content or publishing the shopping mall ad.
The shopping mall ad ran during the final weeks of the campaign. Relevant here, the shopping mall ad juxtaposed these quotes:
- "Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall … for soliciting sex from young girls." –New American Journal, 11/12/2017
- "One he approached 'was 14 and working as Santa's helper.' " –AL.com, 11/13/2017
Moore lost the Senate race.
To succeed on his claims, Moore must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants created or published the shopping mall ad with either: (1) knowledge that the statements were false; or (2) reckless disregard for whether the statements were false….
[T]he Defendants argue that the court should grant summary judgment because the statements in the shopping mall advertisement—when read separately—are true: (1) the Defendants had a right to rely on widespread reporting that Moore was banned from the Gadsden Mall for soliciting sex from young girls; and (2) Moore himself did not deny that he approached Wendy Miller when she was 14 years old and working as a Santa's helper. The Defendants assert that "SMP did not intend for the TV Ad's second quote to state that Moore was—in the moment—soliciting sex from Wendy Miller when he approached her at the mall[, but instead] intended to suggest that people had said that Moore approached Miller when she was 14 and working as a Santa's helper." Thus, the Defendants argue that the shopping mall ad was accurate and that SMP reasonably believed that it was accurate. Moore counters that, by juxtaposing the quotes as they did, the Defendants intended to "convey that the 14 year old Santa's Helper was 'one' of the 'young girls' that Moore was 'actually banned from the Gadsden Mall … for soliciting sex from.'" The court finds that the Defendants' intent in placing these quotes back-to-back is a question of fact for the jury.
The Defendants next argue that, regardless of their intent, the implication that Moore solicited sex from Miller when she was 14 and working as a Santa's helper is not actionable because the "gist" or "sting" of the shopping mall ad is substantially the same as it would have been without the implication. See Masson v. New Yorker Mag., Inc. (1991) ("Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as 'the substance, the gist, the sting" is justified). But viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, the court finds that telling viewers that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting sex from a 14-year-old Santa's Helper is more stinging than telling viewers that Moore complimented a 14-year-old girl on her appearance or telling them more generally that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting young girls. The jury must decide whether the substance or sting of the juxtaposed ad was justified.
Next, the Defendants assert that they reasonably believed that Moore solicited sex from Wendy Miller when he approached her while she 14 years old and working as Santa's Helper. The Defendants say that "given the various reports about Moore engaging in unwanted sexual conduct toward young girls, when Moore approached Miller and told her she was pretty when she was 14, he was engaging in a process of soliciting her to begin a physical relationship." But just like the Defendants' intent is a question of fact for the jury, the Defendants' belief about Moore's intent when he approached Miller is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Finally, the Defendants argue that summary judgment is proper because multiple media sources had already reported that Moore engaged in a pattern of inappropriate sexual advances toward underage girls and that Moore had been formally or informally banned from the Gadsden Mall for this conduct. The Defendants rely on … Berisha v. Lawson (11th Cir. 2020), which states that "reliance on [ ]many independent sources, alone, should defeat any claim of actual malice."
The court has already rejected this argument. Yes, previous reports support a statement that authorities banned Moore from the mall, in part, because Moore solicited young girls. That's why the court previously held that Moore cannot prove that the Defendants had actual malice in publishing the statement that "Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall … for soliciting sex from young girls." But there was no prior report that Moore asked Wendy Miller for sex when she was 14 and working as Santa's helper at the Gadsden Mall—i.e., the juxtaposed statement that the Defendants made. To the contrary, Miller told the Washington Post that when she was 14 and working as Santa's Helper, "Moore told her that she looked pretty," then when she was 16, "he began asking her out on dates in the presence of her mother at the photo both." Because the Defendants fail to point to another media source that previously said that Moore solicited sex from a 14-year-old working at the mall as Santa's Helper, this argument fails….
UPDATE: D'oh! Though the case is obviously about Moore's Senate run, some wires crossed in my brain and I initially labeled him a candidate for Governor in the headline (he had run for Governor, but in earlier elections). Sorry about that, and thanks to commenter Alexander Campbell for pointing this out.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey Now! Guess Roy Moore has Faux News, just like Jay-Hova intended.
counting down until "Reverend" Arthur Kirtland comments, Over/Under on use of "Klinger" 4
If I recall correctly, y
Frank "Old enough to Hemorrhage....
"Frank "Old enough to Hemorrhage...."
You're a real sweet guy, Mengele.
I still think the horse should have a cause of action against Moore.
https://youtu.be/BWtpRg1J0DE
Oops, Commentus Interruptus, hate it when that happens
IIRC legal marriage age in Alabama was (is? not in the market) 16 back then (don't laugh "Reverend" California and Massachusetts, have no minimum age)
What I don't like about him is the whole Lawyer thing, I'll take a TBI's Herschell Walker anyday, the Judge lost, Former Auburn Coach T. Tuberville won by half a million votes.
Frank "Here cum Da Judge!"
It was 14.
Between the reports that came out of various news organizations and the Democrats posing as Russian Bots, Roy Moore lost to Doug Jones.
I always wondered why no one made a big deal about the fake Russian bots. No prosecutions, no one lost jobs, just business as usual in subverting elections
Stolen election kooks might be my favorite conservative culture war casualties.
Well, stolen election kooks and birthers.
Then there are the QAnon kooks . . .
So many delusional, desperate, disaffected, gullibles from which to choose!
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. Then, replacement.
the washington post
A secret effort to influence the 2017 Senate election in Alabama used tactics inspired by Russian disinformation teams, including the creation of fake accounts to deliver misleading messages on Facebook to hundreds of thousands of voters to help elect Democrat Doug Jones in the deeply red state, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
new york times
Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics
npr
Now, reporting following the race has focused on the controversial strategy used by one pro-Jones group called Project Birmingham.
Revvie Boy, what is your real name? Can licensed lawyers post anonymously?
Or to be clearer, a person wasn’t considered a minor for purposes of having sex with a minor at 14. While soliciting sex likely wouldn’t have been strictly legal in Alabama at the time (fornication laws etc.), it wouldn’t have been any more illegal than if the women involved were 30.
Can't find any indication that age of consent was 14 in Alabama in the late 70s. One reference indicates it was 16 as far back as 1920. Some of the reports during the Moore/Jones election said it was 16 in the late 70s. Doesn't really matter as nobody, as far as I know, claimed Moore actually had sex with any of the girls.
"Peccadilloes" usually actually help the Republican candidate. It would be interesting to see if, having lost, one of them tries to sue for libel like Moore has.
Some examples would be interesting. Your bare assertion smells.
Could the justice system move any slower?
I agree the justice system is often very slow, and here some of the motions did indeed take some time to decide; the first motion to dismiss, for instance, took seven months from the end of briefing to the decision. But note also that here Moore didn't sue until Nov. 15, 2019, so (1) that might affect our judgment of how slowly the system is moving, and (2) it's not clear that Moore himself is in that much of a hurry.
Point taken and I am sure the disruptions cause by the pandemic added to many delays but this has been ongoing and only seems to be getting worse.
Hi, Eugene. Why is the justice system so slow? What is going on during all this time it takes to make a decision? Correct, lawyer jobs and billable hours. Slowness is fraud. Money for work of no value.
All the time, like the 2 Murderers "awaiting Execution" in Arizona and Georgia for murder(s) commited in the 70's
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/arizona/judge-arizona-prisoner-psychologically-executed/75-29a5adc9-9528-4797-8be8-097f1c138402
https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/georgia-high-court-wont-hear-appeal-from-death-row-prisoner/article_33d93f29-14fa-5c88-afe8-3b65cb4b87f6.html
The Georgia case is a Pedofile/Rapist/ Double Murder, been in jail 49 years, guess he was one Pedofile the Prisoners (Asylums have "Inmates", Prisons have "Prisoners") didn't "take care of"
Frank
I dislike "October surprise" campaigning so I hope Moore gets something out of this case.
What Moore is most likely to get out of this case is a bunch more attention for his deviant behavior. If Moore were smart, he'd just stay under that rock. Goes to show, not every West Point grad is a genius.
My prediction: Moore will not get a monetary award out of this.
A man Attracted to nubile girls!?!??!? Where's my fainting couch!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not a matter of attraction, perv, it's a matter of behavior.
Where was Frank Drackman when Judge Kozinski needed him?
Where was Frank Drackman
Maybe practicing his Toobin.
There is an even more basic issue. At the time of the alleged actions, the age of consent in Alabama was 14. Accordingly, none of the girls involved were under legal age. Moore ought to be able to establish that claiming they were was libelous. While such a low age is now anomolous and the fact that it was legal at the time may seem surprising today, nonetheless there is an important distinction in the degree of “sting” involved between claiming a person engaged in conduct that is merely socially disapproved, and claiming a person engaged in conduct that is illegal.
Moore is entitled to the benefit of that distinction. He is entitled to argue that terms like “underage” are not merely a matter of opinion, but tend to communicate in the mind of an ordinary reader a false fact, that the girls involved were not of legal age.
Was he excluded from the mall by management? Was his behavior towards young teenagers the reason, whether legal or not? If so, the "sting" of the article is substantially true, and no jury is likely to feel very sorry for him.
As I recall, a guy who'd been a security guard at the time denied that he had been, said that it had been somebody else and people were likely confusing the real perp with Moore. They could find no documentary evidence of such a ban, or contemporaneous accounts.
They did however find a fair number of people willing to testify that they recalled some such rumor.
So his claim survives because it might be less damaging to his reputation that he was merely "courting" a young teenager at the mall rather than outright soliciting sex. This seems like hair-splitting. There can't be many people out there who find an adult soliciting a 14-year old for sex creepy but think it is perfectly reputable for the adult to ask the 14-year old out on a date. What do they think the guy's ultimate goal is? To chat about popular boy bands and commiserate over the difficulty 9th grade algebra? What a waste of judicial resources.
Yes but read the other comments and let your mind boggle over the support for pedophilia here at the VC
" There can't be many people out there who find an adult soliciting a 14-year old for sex creepy but think it is perfectly reputable for the adult to ask the 14-year old out on a date."
Ah, but he didn't ask the 14 year old out on a date. That was the false impression the juxtaposition created. He didn't ask her out on a date until she was 16.
...
What, you don't think there's a difference between 14 and 16? Aside from the numerical difference, there was a big legal difference.
I was just pointing out to CommentMonkey that his comment was factually inaccurate, and perhaps not coincidentally, in exactly the way the report was alleged to be misleading.
Yes, I see your point. Although he approached a 14-year old at the mall and said she was pretty, he waited another couple years to muster the courage to ask for a date. I did not grasp that distinction. Still, it must be a vanishingly small segment of the population that views asking the 14-year old for a date to be disreputable but holding off until she's a 10th grader to be gentlemanly. I certainly don't think any parents of teenage girls would see it that way. Legal difference, yes. But in terms of harm to his reputation, it seems utterly immaterial.
Oh, you don't see any reputational difference between "illegal" and "squicky"? A lot of people do.
But it does go to demonstrate that the false inference was fairly effective at influencing people's beliefs about Moore.
"Ah, but he didn't ask the 14 year old out on a date. That was the false impression the juxtaposition created. He didn't ask her out on a date until she was 16."
According to Leigh Corfman she was 14 when Moore " took off her pants and shirt and his own clothes, touched her over her bra and underwear, and guided her hand to touch his penis over his underwear."
Yeah, once the hit job was ordered, women came out of the woodwork to accuse him, rather like Kavanaugh. Who knows, maybe he even did it, I wasn't there.
Fact remains, though, he didn't hit on Wendy Miller when she was 14.
" Yeah, once the hit job was ordered, "
It must be tough to be an antisocial, autistic, disaffected, obsolete, backwater conservative, haunted by conspiracy theories around every corner and in every shadow, rejected by modern society, doomed to even more disappointment and failure in the culture war, clinging to delusions and superstition, infuriated by all of this damned progress, reason, tolerance, science, modernity, education, and inclusiveness.
On the contrary, we seek the truth and only the truth. The "hit job" directed at Moore was not the complete truth, hence the libel suit. Better to be all the things you charge us at while telling the truth, then to live a life that's not grounded in reality, but in lies.
Repent of your falsehoods, Artie.
If I were on a jury here, I'd find for Roy Moore and award him $1 on the grounds that this is all his reputation is worth. Anyone else remember his 10 Commandments grandstanding?
You and I didn't think much of him before, but lots of people in Alabama did. The case is worth more than a dollar.
Arguably therefore the accusation would only raise his reputation in Alabama!
Yes, but the issue is the incremental harm this particular ad caused, not the overall drop in his reputation. $1 sounds about right.
His reputation may not be worth more than $1 but this may be in the nature of defamation per se which does not require proof of damages. Don't know how damages would be assessed in such a case.
Doesn't matter anyway as Moore will not be able to jump the malice hurdle even if he is able to convince anybody of the falsity of the reports.
Well, if it is published in the Washington Post - - - -
then we know it is false
" Miller told the Washington Post that when she was 14 and working as Santa's Helper, "Moore told her that she looked pretty," then when she was 16, "he began asking her out on dates in the presence of her mother at the photo both." "
Moore's fans and defenders are low-quality hypocrites and antisocial creeps who deserve everything their betters have imposed on them in the culture war.
Also, when will Alabama stop being a stain and drain on our nation?
Carry on, clingers.
Piss off you pompous wanker.
Send Moore another $100 for his Ten Commandments project or for his general Soldiering For Jesus (When Not Bothering Seventh-Grade Girls At The Mall, Like Any Full-Grown Right-Wing Incel) Campaign, you bigoted, superstitious, gullible, worthless clinger.
The title could be phrased better maybe. My first thought reading it was “wait, he actually had sex with a 14 year old?”. My brain interpreted “solicited” as an adjective rather than a verb.
Only the click counts, not how the headline is worded.
This is reminiscent to me of Nathan Leopold's libel and false light suits against the people who put out "Compulsion".
Good thing he didn't abandon an adult woman to Asphyxiate (not drown, there's a difference) in his Oldsmobile, like a certain Massachusetts Senator who's named rhymed with Schmenedy, his Political Career would have been over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know, I actually blame the Republicans on Kennedy's political survival. They had this bizarre notion that they'd be able to make him crumble just by whispering her name, so thought it not worth destroying him.
He, of course, had not nearly that much remorse, (He had after all gone home to get a hot shower and a good night's sleep before reporting the accident, or else she'd have lived.)
Because they refrained from striking while the iron was hot, it cooled, and he became secure in office again.
I mean, he can proceed with the suit, but if all he's got is "bullshit! I waited till she was 16 before I tried to pork her!" then I certainly hope the jury will do the sensible thing and reject him.
Are you trying to pretend that there's no difference between statuory rape and legal sex?
If you're looking for the monster here, you might try a mirror
While I don't particularly like Ray Moore, I hope he wins his suit.
Too often courts let liars get away with their BS, I'm glad this court isn't doing that