Former Ala. Senate Candidate Roy Moore Wins $8.2M Libel Verdict

The court allowed the case to go forward in an opinion on June 2: Press accounts, on which defendant political organization (the Senate Majority PAC) was generally entitled to rely, had said that (1) Moore "had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls" and that (2) he had told a 14-year-old girl at the mall "she looked pretty." But the organization had apparently juxtaposed the two quotes, in a way that may have been suggested that he solicited sex from a 14-year-old girl:

• "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

The court had concluded that,

[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, … 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.

The jury apparently agreed, giving a verdict for Moore after getting instructions based on that legal conclusion. The 14-year-old girl had "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.'" And I take it the jury took the view that there's a sufficient difference between a 30-year-old's asking out a 16-year-old—which I expect many would disapprove of, but is perfectly legal in most states, including Alabama, even if the goal is sex—and a 30-year-old's soliciting sex from 14-year-old, which was a crime both then and now.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Roy Moore's problem was that he wasn't a Hollywood celebrity, in which case approaching a much younger person of either sex would be considered as just fine.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Or a plane to take said girl to his own private island.....a plane with Bill Clinton a regular one it....

[DaivdBehar]

Why is calling a girl pretty a crime?

[DaivdBehar]

A crime to be reported in the press.

[DaivdBehar]

If it can be shown that the libel cost him an election, the damages may be far higher. He could probably have made $50 million from being elected.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe there's hope for "Reverend" Arthur T. Sandusky after all.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The liberal media was singing the praises of the Alex Jones verdict, not realizing that in cooking his goose theirs was also going to come up done sooner or later. How many lives has the corporate media ruined playing fast and loose with the facts? Or just being outright dishonest, but instead of "crisis actors" you had accusations of ambiguous shadowy racism that simply did not exist.

[apedad]

You realize this case has nothing to do with the "liberal media," right?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Unless it is Foxnews it is the liberal media.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Roy Moore can get $8 million for his reputation, what might Dominion expect from Fox?

[Frank Drackman]

the same thing you gave your players, a big (Redacted)

[John F. Carr]

I am thrilled to see an "October Surprise" turn back on its creators, at least a little bit. In the bigger picture the award needs a couple more zeroes to be a deterrent. Either party would have gladly spent an extra $8 million to win an election for a nearly divided Senate and the right to decide on trillions of dollars of handouts. But Roy Moore does not have standing to punish people for lying to turn an election. That's a job for a criminal election interference law like the one posted here recently.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hopefully he'll live long enough to collect, after the sure to come appeals.

See Gibson's Bakery V Oberlin College for an example.

[Alexander Campbell]

Though he did run for Governor a couple times, he also *was* Chief Justice a few times and famously ran for Senate, which was the context of the defamatory ads. You probably meant to identify him as Senate candidate, not Gov. candidate, in the headline.

[SRG]

And he was removed from CJ for being a theocratic mofo

[wreckinball]

And this is why he won.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The judge is a Federalist Society darling and (losing) culture warrior who hired the 'I HATE BLACK PEOPLE' clerk before Judge Pryor hired her. This occurred in Alabama, the septic tank of America.

That may be at least part of the reason Roy Moore -- a loathsome person, even by Republican and Alabama standards -- wins in Alabama.

Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit, anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

So were the judge's instructions wrong? Are there grounds for a appeal?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" So were the judge's instructions wrong? "

I would wait for an analysis from an informed source who supports free expression before trying to reach a reliable conclusion concerning that point.

[Mr. Bumble]

On a different topic entirely, FYI Yuengling was not sold to Molson-Coors but rather they entered a joint venture agreement to expand Yuengling's marketing. Still independent and America's oldest brewery.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Expanding Yuengling's marketing" is a bizarre way to describe a 50-50 joint venture that brews Yuengling beer at a MolsonCoors brewery and sells the beer through MolsonCoors wholesalers in 25 states.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, good for them; When Dr. Pepper bought Vernors, they really ruined the recipe, turning it into more of a mass market product. Smart of Yuengling to maintain some independence so that they don't get turned into Coors lite.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why disparage Coors?

And how could association with Coors (Coors Light, Extra Gold. Banquet, Blue Moon) diminish the brewer of Raging Eagle Mango Beer (or Yuengling Light, or Flight)?

Yuengling is a good company with some good beers; Coors is at least as good a company, with beers that are at least as good as Yuengling's.

[Mr. Bumble]

Coors shot itself in the foot when it was found to be transporting tanker cars of concentrated beer to Virginia to be mix with Virginia Mountain Spring Water.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'll spare you information concerning Yuengling.

Like a child permitting to believe in Santa Claus for another few months, you seem like someone who could use some myth to cling to.

[Ridgeway]

Why disparage Coors?

Because Coors Light is the worst beer sold in America by a wide margin. It is materially worse than other "bad" beers that at least have the excuse of being really, really cheap (like Schaefer, Orin City, Piels and Schlitz), and even bad beers that have regained popularity through some ironic hipness (like Pabst or Naragansett).

Plus it has no alcohol to dull your tastebuds, so each Coors Light tastes as bad as the last one.

[Mr. Bumble]

First, I did not "disparage" Coors. My original post above was a response to a comment you made (on another thread) about Yuengling being bought by Molson-Coors. As my post indicates this is not true.

I am not a shill for Yuengling, I just feel that like Jimmy Breslin used to say "It's a good drinking beer" (At the time he was speaking about Piels.) That plus the fact that it is still an independent company after 200 plus years. Quite a feat.

My introduction to Coors occurred over 50 years ago when I was on vacation in the Republic of Viet Nam, courtesy of LBJ. Back then Coors was only available in certain western states but had a huge following for those who knew it. It was literally gold with a thriving black market and units fighting over it and stealing it from each other. When I returned and Coors finally made it to the east coast it was fine and very popular but the expansion led to a decline in quality and its eventual sale to Molson.

If you like it, fine, drink up. As for light beers, might as well drink water.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" First, I did not "disparage" Coors. "

Firster, I did not observe anyone claim you disparaged Coors.

A different wingnut disparaged Coors.

Which is curious, because Joe Coors was a strident right-wing nut whose angel capital helped finance the then-fledgling right-wing nut machine (Heritage, Leadership Institute, others) and at least one of his sons was an ardent wingnut, too. Plenty of bigotry in the back pages of the Coors family.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Joseph Coors also was said to be the person who arranged Anne Gorsuch's federal service in the Reagan Administration. She was disgraced; Joe Coors probably deserved some of that stain.

And it was his brother, I believe, rather than one of his sons who was as strident a wingnut as Joe Coors was.

[Mr. Bumble]

See the story of Dublin Dr. Pepper to see hoe corporations can ruin a great product. There was also a documentary about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Dr_Pepper

[Curle]

In other words, you’ll wait to parrot the opinion of someone WITH A LAW DEGREE. Right Artie?

[Frank Drackman]

it's "Reverend" Artie

[David Nieporent]

The judge is a Federalist Society darling

[Citation needed], as wikipedia says.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He reported Federalist Society membership on his Senate questionnaire.'

He was nominated by former Pres. Trump, who essentially outsourced the nomination process to Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.

He was a young Republican Federalist Society nominee for the federal bench, likely chosen as much for right-wing reliability as for any achievement. He also was a lawyer working in Republican administrations.

He hired a clerk who had declared "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE," has been reported to have engaged in other racist conduct, and worked at Turning Point USA.

He is from -- and has stayed in -- Alabama.

A can't-miss Federalist Society favorite.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It says he joined the Federalist Society in 2017, or about a year before he was appointed (and almost 15 years after graduating from law school). That suggests opportunism rather than commitment to me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He worked as a Republican in public positions (district attorney or attorney general, solicitor general) in Alabama, apparently from the start of his legal career. He seems to have become solicitor general for a Republican governor at 30. That's not someone who needs to be persuaded to join the Federalist Society. Perhaps his superiors (or some state policy) disinclined membership in such an overtly partisan organization while working on the public payroll in a policy-making or prosecutorial position.

Perhaps someone will ask him about his. His explanation would be worthwhile.

[bernard11]

That suggests opportunism rather than commitment to me.

Yes, but is that an argument in his favor?

[David Nieporent]

The judge … hired the 'I HATE BLACK PEOPLE' clerk before Judge Pryor hired her.

This appears to be a fabrication by Kirkland also. I've never heard that, and I've googled to try to verify it, and can't find anything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It appears she is indeed set to start (or has just started?) her clerkship with Judge Maze:

A special committee must be appointed to consider misconduct allegations against two federal judges who hired a law clerk accused of making racist statements, according to a July 8 decision.
...
The two judges are U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor, who is chief judge of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta, and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze of the Northern District of Alabama. The judges had hired law student Crystal Clanton to work for them after she completed law school, despite the accusations against her. Clanton was hired to work for Pryor beginning in 2023 after she clerks for Maze.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judicial-panel-orders-probe-into-federal-judges-hiring-of-law-clerk-accused-of-racist-statements

[David Nieporent]

Er, yes. She is working for Maze; I knew that. This is the second time today I've had to apologize for misinterpreting someone else's comment and inappropriately criticizing that commenter. I thought that Kirkland was saying that Moore had hired her. But, yes, she's clerking for Maze before Pryor.

So Kirkland wasn't making up facts; he's just doing his Trumpian usual of attacking judges that issue rulings he dislikes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Someone asked how this result could have developed.

If you don't consider "Alabama," "Alabama jury," and "Alabama Federalist Society judge" are candidates in that context, you are doing this wrong.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You may be using a faulty Google-compatible device, Mr. Nieporent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see that you recognized the circumstance and have apologized, Mr. Nieporent. Everyone makes mistakes. To the extent you wish to have me accept your apology, I accept it and thank you for it.

[Curle]

Artie, whatever plot of dirt you are dumping your inane ass down on in any given week has a good claim to being the ‘septic tank of America’.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

(Try to) name three worthwhile or admirable things about Alabama, Curle.

[Frank Drackman]

Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, A-hole (I mean "you're the A-hole", not that A-holes are admirable things about Alabama)

[Frank Drackman]

my bad, meant "Billy Williams" instead of EB, you know they all look the same.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Three men who left Alabama as soon as they could and stayed away (Aaron -- Atlanta, Mays -- San Francisco, Williams -- Chicago)?

Not much of an endorsement of today's Alabama, which continues to be a drain and stain on our nation.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Duh, they didn't have MLB in Alabama (Still don't), OK, and I left too, so, dammit, I think I just made your point.
Speaking of Stains, here's one of the Shit variety, who's still stinking up Monkey-Town (HT AlGores Wikipedia)
"Morris Seligman Dees Jr. (born December 16, 1936) is an American attorney known as the co-founder and former chief trial counsel for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), based in Montgomery, Alabama."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You customarily make my point, Mr. Drackman, regardless of whether you recognize it.

[Curle]

Now ask me the same about you.

[David Nieporent]

And he was removed from CJ for being a theocratic mofo

Twice!

[Frank Drackman]

and elected (Twice!) by the peoples.

[Eugene Volokh]

Alexander Campbell: Whoops, sorry, of course you're right; corrected.

[wreckinball]

Surprised that he won TBH. But if DeSantis is the nominee expect same tactics. In effect it worked. It just cost them $8M. They probably would have just written the check.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If DeSantis has a documented history of preying in teenage girls (and I have no reason to believe he does) then yes, I would expect his political opponents to mention that once or twice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't believe you can actually say that Moore had a history of preying on teenage girls. I never heard that he failed to take no for an answer, or propositioned one who wasn't of the age of consent.

In fact, wasn't that what this libel suit was about, their having falsely implied that he had?

[David Nieporent]

In fact, wasn't that what this libel suit was about, their having falsely implied that he had?

No; it was about one specific girl.

I never heard that he failed to take no for an answer, or propositioned one who wasn't of the age of consent.

It's funny how you always manage to hear the most obscure and absurd conspiracy theories, but things published in mainstream newspapers always escape your attention. Look up Leigh Corfman.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'd heard of her.

"Leigh Corfman first told the Washington Post in 2017 that Moore, while working as a young prosecutor in the Etowah County Courthouse, sexually assaulted her when she was 14 and he was 32 in 1979. "

So, 38 years after it supposedly happened she brings this up. I wonder why then, and not earlier?

Oh, right, she was one of the women who surfaced to attack more after Democrats decided on this tack to defeat him.

Frankly, I don't credit accusations of decades old misconduct unless you can demonstrate contemporaneous records demonstrating it actually happened. It's just become too convenient a way of attacking politicians.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Birther Brett, you are a lousy person. And not only because of your bigotry.

[Mr. Bumble]

Coming from you, that is hilarious.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Bumble, the "Reverend" "Cai'nt Hep it" (HT (The Late) Ann Richards) Pedophiles are "Born that Way"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Brett moves the goalposts again!

First he claims "I never heard that he failed to take no for an answer, or propositioned one who wasn't of the age of consent," and then when confronted with that precise allegation says, "I don't believe it." But whether you believe it is irrelevant to whether the accusation was made. (The former allegation — that he "failed to take no for an answer" — was also made by Beverly Nelson, the yearbook girl.)

Oh, right, she was one of the women who surfaced to attack more after Democrats decided on this tack to defeat him.

Completely wrong. Setting aside the absurd vision of Democrats sitting around saying, "How can we defeat Roy Moore? I know, let's make up the claim that he's a child molester," Corfman came forward first.

Frankly, I don't credit accusations of decades old misconduct unless you can demonstrate contemporaneous records demonstrating it actually happened.

"Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore."

Also, can anyone think of a reason why a 14-year old girl in 1979 might not have reported that a prosecutor assaulted her?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If DeSantis has a documented history of preying in teenage girls

If you're going to be nothing but a dishonest propaganda tool, could you at least put a little effort into trying to be a little more subtle about it?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about?

I thought explicitly quoting the statement I was responding to would make that pretty obvious, even for you. Apparently not.

[Krychek_2]

That's because you only quoted half of it, dipshit. You left out the part about "I have no reason to believe that he is."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's because you only quoted half of it, dipshit. You left out the part about "I have no reason to believe that he is."

That was with regard to DeSantis, based on an allegation about Moore (to which the part above did NOT apply)...you mouth-breathing, window-licking illiterate moron.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You’re too much of a fucking tool to have quoted it properly, which is why you’re being mocked yet again.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's because you only quoted half of it, dipshit. You left out the part about "I have no reason to believe that he is."

That was with regard to DeSantis, based on an allegation about Moore (to which the part above did NOT apply)...you mouth-breathing, window-licking illiterate moron.

See my response to Krychek above. You both appear to be afflicted with the same cognitive disabilities.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, and he said that *as to DeSantis* he had no reason to believe it was true. Don't blame us for your inability to follow an argument.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, and he said that *as to DeSantis* he had no reason to believe it was true. Don't blame us for your inability to follow an argument.

Which was not the part of the statement I was addressing, which is why I didn't quote it. The part I did quote had a meaning all it's own, with or without the DeSantis add-on, you fucking imbecile.

[Krychek_2]

You know, when you've got two people telling you that you screwed up the quote, maybe you should at least entertain the possibility that they're right.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You know, when you've got two people telling you that you screwed up the quote, maybe you should at least entertain the possibility that they're right.

Except when both of those "people" are pathologically lying morons, as is the case here.

[Krychek_2]

You know, Wuz, multiple people in this thread have called you a liar. I would not do that, because I believe in the principle of never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The baby doth project too much, methinks.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The baby doth project too much, methinks.

I can see you sitting there with your fingers in your ears screaming the ABCs as loudly as you can.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your response is deliciously ironic, though I doubt you were aware of that fact when you typed it out.

Three people have informed you that your 'comprehension' was incorrect, including the person who actually wrote the initial response you were confused by.

And yet you're still too fucking stupid and arrogant to just admit that you were wrong.

A pathetic display of your inability to ever change for the better.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

JFC, you must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch within 3 counties of your location. Tell the class what you think this part of quote...

"If DeSantis has a documented history of preying in teenage girls..."

Is a reference to, given the context? Before answering though, you should probably pull your empty from its location deep within your large intestines.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"empty head"

[John F. Carr]

The lesson of Roy Moore is you don't mention it now. You wait until just before the election to push out the old news. Or the lesson of Hillary Clinton but I don't think that was intended to change the election outcome.

[David Welker]

Is this guy supposed to be some sort of role model for sexual predators?

“I may be a sexual predator, but I wasn’t that bad of one. They ruined my reputation. You too can get a million-dollar judgment when people aren’t precise about the nature of your predation.”

Asking a 16-year old out at age 30 is predatory. I don’t see how the jury determined the damages because the reputation damages from the truth seem pretty high. Not sure that the additional damage from the libel adds much.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Is this guy supposed to be some sort of role model for sexual predators?"

No, that would be Harvey Milk who even has a naval vessel named after him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Asking a 16-year old out at age 30 is predatory."

Its icky and few would do it but its always legal if no sex. In many states, as EV points out, its legal to even have sex.

Isn't it the implication of a crime [14 year old] that is defamatory? Though I agree the damages were way too high, and I expect both the trial court and the appeals process to reduce it.

[David Welker]

Bob:

“But it’s legal.”

Laws specifying age limits are, by their nature, imposing an imprecise discrete framework on a continuous phenomenon, namely the transition of humans from childhood to adulthood.

The difference between a 14-year old and a 16-year old often isn’t that high (I presume that individuals mature mentally and physically at different rates and times and unevenly. But in the eyes of the law in some jurisdictions, that difference may be the difference between a crime and no crime even if, in a particular case, there was no substantial difference.

That the criminal law imposes a discrete and imprecise framework is needed for objectivity and in order to provide indisputable notice about what is forbidden and what is allowed. It would be unsound to have a more subjective standard outlawing “unreasonable” attempts at seduction.

Given that we must impose this imprecise framework out of due process concerns, the question is how should we error? Should we error by criminalizing relationships with higher or lower age cutoffs?

Both errors cause problems. If you choose higher age cutoffs, the state becomes more intrusive and becomes more likely to interfere in behavior it should not. If you choose lower age cutoffs, then more people who should be protected are not protected.

No matter what age cutoff (unless it is truly extreme like age 25 around when most human brains are fully developed) you are likely going to have both sorts of errors to some degree. As you shift the age cutoff, you will get more of one type if error at the expense of the other. One might imagine that there is some optimal, but it would be fantasy to think legislatures are doing anything more precise than a “gut check” when setting these cutoffs.

As is often said, not everything that is legal is moral. Just because something is not criminal, that doesn’t mean it is OK to do it. As explained above, there is no way to formulate a “perfect” law that outlaws only and everything we don’t want without also outlawing some things that should not be interfered with or where we are confused about whether they should be interfered with. Thus, we leave some things to be regulated by individual conscience at the margins.

Some individual consciences are defective and predatory. This is the case with Moore. He already ruined his own reputation with his bad judgment and defective conscience. That it did or did not cross a necessarily imprecise line doesn’t change that calculus.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, basically what you're saying is that it's immoral to not draw the line in the same place you would, even though it's a different place than the elected legislature chose to draw it?

[David Welker]

The universe of bad acts is not equivalent to the universe of illegal acts. Some bad acts are not illegal. And that must be the case in any society that has due process and leaves some issues to individual conscience. This isn’t controversial.

Some things are left to individual conscience. And sometimes people choose to do bad things and they aren’t formally punished for it by the legal system.

I don’t understand why this is a difficult issue for you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just puzzled over why you're privileging your idea of "bad things" over everbody else's.

Sure, it was a bit squicky, bad optics. Whatever. Takes more than squicky to be a sexual predator, as most people understand the term to be referring to rapists, not guys who want to date younger women.

[David Welker]

Dating younger women isn’t the issue. Dating someone whose brain is in that particular stage of development and lacks proper life experience is the issue.

Let kids be kids, Brett. The preference of some man for someone who is so too young is not all important. He is a sexual predator and so would you be if you did something similar.

Your understanding of sexual predators being ONLY rapists is also ridiculously narrow. We call someone a predator when they seek to gain at someone else’s expense. And the motive here is sexual. Hence, the phrase “sexual predator.”

[Squirrelloid]

16 is no longer a child; stop infantilizing teenagers! We let 16 year olds drive, allow them to be on their own without calling the cops, frequently try them as adults when they break the law, and we expect them to know right from wrong. Hell, we let them watch small children by themselves! We let them vote and sign contracts just two years later.

(I agree the age difference was larger than I'd consider appropriate. But hardly predatory; the girl can always say no - as it appears she did - and take responsibility for her own choices either way).

[Squirrelloid]

Also, if you really believe: "Dating younger women isn’t the issue. Dating someone whose brain is in that particular stage of development and lacks proper life experience is the issue." then i suppose we shouldn't allow teenagers to date each other, either? I mean, both their brains aren't fully developed! How can we possibly expect either one to be responsible?

[David Welker]

With respect to two teenagers dating each other, we wouldn’t expect either to be responsible. But that is part of the advantage. The power differential arising from greater mental and emotional maturity isn’t so stark. Age-appropriate dating at 16 or 14 is fine. That doesn’t mean that instances of abuse don’t also occur at that age as well. But it is less likely to happen and when it does, it is less likely to establish itself as a long-term or lifelong problem.

16 year olds are not infants. But they aren’t adults either. This phase of life is highly experimental and full of learning.

[Squirrelloid]

So, it's fine to let them drive or take care of small children unsupervised, but not choose whom to have dinner with, or, horrors, kiss?

Secondly, taking your assumption for granted (that we can't trust teenagers to make decisions), you think teenagers dating each other is better because *they'll both make bad decisions*? Really? Shouldn't it be *at least twice as bad*?

[Bubba Jones]

It's pretty damned creepy to stalk a 14 year old for 2 years at the mall, waiting for her to turn 16.

And apparently the mall thought so too?

I'd award him $1 like the USFL.

[GKHoffman]

So in your mind, telling a girl she's pretty on separate occasions a year apart constitutes stalking?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She was 14. He was at least twice her age.

You do yourself no favors by revealing your thinking or opinions in this context.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

So "Reverend" do you get Conjugal Visits at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
I mean besides Dontel sticking it to you in the shower

Frank "would love a Conjugal visit"

[Bored Lawyer]

You don't have to be "some sort of role model" to prevail in a defamation action, that's the point.

If David Welker once got a couple of speeding tickets, and I went around saying, "David Welker regularly does 85 mph in a school zone," do you think that would be defamatory?

[David Welker]

First, we are very far from “role model” territory here. We are instead in “don’t be a predator” territory.

Second, if your reputation is already trashed from the things that are true, the damages from errors should be low. What do you have to lose?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First, we are very far from “role model” territory here.

Well, the only one trying to apply that term is you, so....

[David Welker]

I said “role model to sexual predators” so I was using the term in a very specific way. When you speak of “role model” without the qualification, the meaning is different. And your comment would make no sense if interpreted to include the qualification implicitly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I said “role model to sexual predators” so I was using the term in a very specific way. When you speak of “role model” without the qualification, the meaning is different. And your comment would make no sense if interpreted to include the qualification implicitly.

Now you're just engaged in dishonest tap-dancing. Everyone who has responded to your use of "role model" has been doing so in that context, so the meaning is the same throughout. Every reference to that term has been to your use of it, which was a lame straw man at best.

[David Welker]

Sorry, the person who used the phrase “role model” above was not you, but Bored Lawyer.

And it is clear that he meant the phrase in a more general way. Saying:

You don't have to be "some sort of role model to sexual predators to prevail in a defamation action, that's the point. (Bold added.)

would be weird to say. I believe this person (who isn’t you) didn’t intend this meaning.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're still just tap-dancing...and you're not even good at it.

And it is clear that he meant the phrase in a more general way. Saying:

You don't have to be "some sort of role model to sexual predators to prevail in a defamation action, that's the point. (Bold added.)

would be weird to say. I believe this person (who isn’t you) didn’t intend this meaning.

Which is relevant...how? He was responding to YOUR statement, which was a straw man argument about the verdict being an indication that someone considers Moore to be some kind of "role model" (to sexual predators, or whomever).

Give the bullshit a rest. You want to argue that the award was excessive? No problem. But the "role model" comment was a stupidly disingenuous way to frame that argument. Just acknowledge that and stop trying to defend it with the ridiculous rhetorical gymnastics.

[David Welker]

I will continue to defend the role model comment. Saying someone is a role model (in general) is a compliment. Saying someone is a role model to sexual predators is derogatory.

Your “to sexual predators or whomever” line indicates your failure to grasp that point. No, it is not “whomever” it is specifically to sexual predators.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You really are a pathetically dishonest piece of shit. No wonder you're virtue signalling so hard.

[David Welker]

I find your responses here disproportionate, amusing, and mockable all at once.

And yes, I do believe in virtue.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And yes, I do believe in virtue.

So you don't even know what virtue-signaling means.

[Bored Lawyer]

The answer to your question is that these are issues for a jury. A reputation is not a binary thing, and either you are a saint or a devil. All huma beings have imperfections, and that fact that a defamation plaintiff has some admitted flaws does not mean that he is defamation proof.

[David Welker]

No reasonable jury could award $8.2 million for this. His reputation was already trash.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" No reasonable jury could award $8.2 million for this. "

It's Alabama.

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Alabama 45

COLLEGE DEGREE
Alabama 45

ADVANCED DEGREE
Alabama 40

HALF-EDUCATED HAYSEEDS
Alabama 3

[Curle]

Quite the racist you are going after states with disproportionate underperforming minority populations.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why he (and his "Ilk" and if a crowd ever deserved to be called "Ilk" it's the "Reverends" (in most states they're called "Sex Offenders")
are so supportive of minorities nipping their next generation in the bud(Endometrium to be exact)

[Frank Drackman]

of course your mileage may vary, got my HS Diploma, College BS(appropriate) and M.D. (Deranged, Mentally) from Alabama Institutions, and in a battle of wits you'd fail the weigh in...

Frank "Bitch, Slapped"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your lack of familiarity with standard English inclines me to believe you attended Alabama schools.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have an interesting notion of what makes somebody a "sexual predator", you know that? The funny thing here is that if Moore weren't a heterosexual, the left would likely be celebrating his behavior, not condemning it.

[David Welker]

Brett,

I am not “the left.” And yes, he is predatory. That you agree or disagree with his politics or his sexuality has nothing to do with the question.

You find it interesting what I think makes someone a sexual predator? I find your interest even more interesting. If you are going around telling 14-year old girls (that are strangers to you and didn’t ask) that they are pretty I find that concerning. And if you are trying to seduce 16-year olds at the age of 30 or above, you are a predator.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, well, we know know that your definition of "sexual predator" has nothing to do with any legal definition, you just mean drawing the line in a different legal spot than you prefer.

[David Welker]

Because of the need to provide due process, law cannot outlaw every bad act. That you think there is nothing bad that is also legal is defect in your individual judgment and your individual conscience.

I think it is interesting that you frame issues of judgment and conscience as merely about preference. As if whether to be a sexual predator or not is no more significant than the cereal one chooses to consume for breakfast.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a spectrum, which correlates badly with the law, from purely horrific to saintly, and trying to date 16 year olds, but taking no for an answer, is a lot less awful than you're making it out to be. More a matter of bad taste than immorality.

I appeal to the law, enacted by an elected legislature, only in an effort to clue you in to your opinion not being as universal as you seem to think, or else the law would have drawn the line somewhere else.

[David Welker]

It is a matter of morality, not mere taste.

Because it is predatory. And it is predatory because the brain of the 16-year old is not fully developed, they have only passed puberty by a few years, and they are lacking life experience.

Letting kids be kids is not merely a matter of taste, like your choice of a breakfast cereal with raisins, which I personally dislike.

[Brett Bellmore]

A 16 year old is not a "kid", for most of history they'd have been regarded as young adults.

[Squirrelloid]

For most of history they'd actually have been regarded as full adults, and generally already married with at least one child by 16.

[David Welker]

The human brain continues to develop to the age of 25. Not only that, but life experience to fill that brain is also critically important.

That in the past humans did not have the luxury of more optimal development is not a justification for sexual predation in the present.

A 16-year old is only a few years past puberty. There is no rush.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the human brain isn't done developing until 25 or so, by the standards of people over the age of 25. OTOH, it's mostly done by the end of puberty.

Unless you're proposing raising the age of majority to 25, I don't see the relevance of that last little bit of development.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently, in your case it still hasn't fully developed.

[Don Nico]

David W.
You're squirming now to get off a hook you planted yourself.
Just give it a rest.
Sure Moore is a creep. He has been one for decades

[David Welker]

Brett,

The relevance of the age 25 is to demonstrate that people at the age of 16 are still undergoing mental development even on a physical level with respect to the brain.

One does not need to make that the age of majority to be relevant. It is scientifically relevant.

[David Welker]

Don Nico:

Squirming? Hook?

You have an overactive imagination.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Gosh, it's almost as if humanity has evolved and become more sophisticated over time. By your logic if 12 year old girls were traded to a groom for a couple of cows and 40 acres. The basis being "most of history". Hell, Houston should be able to raid San Antiono and steal their women and slaves if most of history was the criteria.

[David Welker]

As far as line drawing goes, read above. I already explained why perfect line drawing isn’t possible. There are errors on both sides of any line that is drawn.

I am not criticizing the Alabama legislature’s line drawing (at the moment), I am criticizing a particular individual whose judgment and conscience failed.

[Aunt Teefah]

Or maybe the law and morality are entirely separate things? For instance, most decent people think that cheating on a spouse is morally abhorrent, but it is in no sense illegal. Moore can be (and is) a total scumbag and a sexual predator, even if he technically did not meet all the elements of a statute in the jurisdiction's criminal code.

[David Welker]

Right. I agree. Except I wouldn’t say law and morality are totally separate either. Morality is an input into the making of law by legislators.

[Aunt Teefah]

Agree completely. My above comment was meant to be a response to Brett Bellmore, just to be clear.

[Brett Bellmore]

But my point in referencing the law was just exactly that public conceptions of morality ARE an input into the making of law by legislatures, so the fact that the legislature drew the line in a place Welker doesn't like might clue him in to his opinion of the morality not being remotely universal.

I don't, in fact, think there's anything immoral about a middle aged guy asking a 16 year old girl out on a date, even if it's with the idea that in a year or two he might be proposing to her. It looks bad to a lot of people, and there are serious practical considerations such as having enough life insurance that you're not going to leave a widow with children in the lurch, and being very up front about the actuarial probabilities. But it's not inherently immoral. It's not sexual predation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't, in fact, think there's anything immoral about a middle aged guy asking a 16 year old girl out on a date, "

That is because you are a disaffected, autistic, delusional right-wing loser and antisocial culture war casualty.

[Noscitur a sociis]

and there are serious practical considerations such as having enough life insurance that you're not going to leave a widow with children in the lurch, and being very up front about the actuarial probabilities.

Every now and then you have a streak of making lucid comments, and I start thinking that maybe you're not a complete lunatic.

And then, of course, you always manage to come out with something like this. Jesus fucking Christ.

[David Welker]

Brett,

I would never let you anywhere around my family. Not to be judgmental, but you are basically a savage.

The hunger of a middle-aged man for a 16-year old as opposed to more appropriate matches is unimportant. The healthy development of young people, on the other hand, is a moral imperative.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure what you think was crazy about that. You don't like people being practical about stuff you personally wouldn't do?

[Don Nico]

Let's forget Roy Moore.
Here is a poll question: was Edward M. Kennedy a sexual predator?

[Mr. Bumble]

...in the same way that Bill Clinton was?

[Aunt Teefah]

I mean, yes? Bill Clinton seems to have been a sexual predator too, albeit as to adults, so far as I'm aware. Are you expecting me to defend him or something?

[Don Nico]

Geez, Teefah, I actully have to agree with you this time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

trying to date 16 year olds, but taking no for an answer, is a lot less awful than you're making it out to be. More a matter of bad taste than immorality.

Yikes.

[Aunt Teefah]

They just can't help but tell on themselves . . .

[Brett Bellmore]

As a libertarian I try to distinguish between "immoral" and "bad optics". I prefer to reserve "immoral" for rights violations, and I don't really see how asking somebody out on a date violates their rights. It's not like 16 year olds are actually children, they're young adults.

There are lots of practical considerations in "May-December" relationships. Having lots of life insurance, plans for how the younger spouse will support themselves after the older has likely died, everybody being clear about the actuarial and medical realities. What they aren't, is "immoral".

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am willing to believe that you don't understand why it's bad for sexual predators to target children, but I am surprised that you don't feel at least a little bit embarrassed about it. Hell, even Roy Moore had the sense to realize that he should try to cover it up!

[Aunt Teefah]

Just utterly vile. The biggest problem you can see with a middle-aged prosecutor attempting to have sex with teenage children is . . . life insurance?? Christ almighty you're truly sick.

"It's not like 16 year olds are actually children."

Except that they literally are, even in the most hyper-technical legalistic sense. Every state that I'm aware of considers someone a minor until the age of 18. 16 year olds cannot enter a contract for a cell phone, and Brett would doubtless object to them being extended the franchise on the grounds that they have not matured mentally to be entrusted with such a decision. Yet he has no problem with them being preyed upon by middle-aged men.

"As a libertarian"

He said the line!

Just for future reference, when you're defending the "right" of middle aged men to have sex with children, this part is presumed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you even understand what an "age of consent" IS, when you write things like that?

And, yeah, I get that you're assuming all the allegations, including ones a jury found defamatory, are true. I'm not making that assumption.

I'd have plenty of problems with him "preying on" 16 year old girls. Dating them? Not so much.

[David Welker]

Brett,

Dating them is preying on them. Just leave her alone, dude. Keep your dick in your pants.

[Aunt Teefah]

"I'd have plenty of problems with him "preying on" 16 year old girls. Dating them? Not so much."

So what, pray tell, do you suppose a middle aged prosecutor was after when he was dating teenage children other than sex? Hand holding?? Oh I know, maybe he just really appreciated the sparkling conversation!

I just refuse to believe someone can actually be this fucking daft.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, are you under the impression that "dating" is a euphemism for having sex? Is that what this is about?

[bevis the lumberjack]

But there's a difference as to "May-December" relationships. A difference in experience and judgement and ability to make decisions. A 15 year difference between, say, 45 and 30 is ok because the 30 year old is clearly old enough to have the chance to have lived on their own and made decisions. Even arguably 37 and 22.

But a 31 year old is basically twice as old as a 15 year old. No way that's really an equal consensual relationship.

If you want to complain about hypocrisy on the left over age of consent, point out that a lot of the same people who say Moore is being a predator are just fine with an adult providing her with an abortion at 15 or 16. The hypocrisy is there, you're just so hellbent on defending the creep that you're not looking in the right place. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I've met 20 year olds who were airheads, and 16 year olds who had more on the ball than I did in my mid 20's. It really depends on the individual at that age.

But I'm pretty clear on one thing: It's between the two of them. 16 isn't so young that you can categorically say they can't make their own decisions who to date. So let's stop pretending that the girl had to be helpless putty in his hands.

There's a reason why, when they set out to defame him, they made people think he was trying to date a 14 year old. There's a huge gulf in those two years.

I'm a lot older than my wife, though we met when she was in her 20's, and she contacted me at the dating site. (I'd thought she was out of my league.) So I'm familiar with the practicalities of May-December marriage, and our marriage is enough of an outlier that I'm not going to be too judgemental. In the end Moore married a 22 year old, I believe, (Though they'd first met when she was younger.) and they seem to have had a successful marriage, and no indication she was some helpless victim, either.

Not like Bill Clinton leaving a trail of bimbo eruptions. So I have trouble crediting the allegations. I don't think people just stop being "sexual predators" on a dime.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No. If you're ripping on Clinton and defending Moore then you've got a massive hypocrisy problem. It's incurable.

I guess Moore just wanted to have a sleepover and do each other's hair and gossip about boys?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog attracts a remarkable concentration of antisocial, disaffected, awkward misfits at society's unattractive fringe.

Does anyone know Adam Bies' screen name at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Got news for you: Clinton's accusations of rape and so on were contemporaneous and well documented, not something people suddenly "remembered" decades later.

But you already knew that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I think there's a spectrum, "

. . . and you are on it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounding a bit like Queen almathea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Queen Almathea strikes you as autistic?

That's weird.

[Mr. Bumble]

My, you are quite the cunninglinquist.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“The left would be celebrating it”.

That’s partisan stupidity. Anyone who disagrees with me is evil stuff. There are zero democrats who are fine with pedophilia if it’s male on male.

Moore is a phony creep. And the idiots who were out to get him were so mission obsessed that they didn’t check (or care about) facts so they defamed him. And got nailed, which is good.

But stuff like what you said about the left is terminally stupid and really really damages your credibility.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There are zero democrats who are fine with pedophilia if it’s male on male.

So you're asserting that there are NO democrats who are either members of NAMBLA or sympathetic (either openly or privately) to its goals? Now is it you come by this omniscience?

[David Welker]

WuzYoungOnceToo:

He is guilty of slight hyperbole. Are you really so desperate for a “win” that you need to focus on the word zero?

[Krychek_2]

David, yes, Wuz really is that desperate for a win. Not sure how long you've been here, but his usual operating procedure is to completely ignore someone's central point in favor of finding a generally irrelevant tangent to go off on.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not sure how long you've been here, but his usual operating procedure is to completely ignore someone's central point in favor of finding a generally irrelevant tangent to go off on.

Have you found any pregnant women yet to represent in civil actions against their fetuses based on your assertion that the latter are committing trespass against the person?

[Krychek_2]

Like I was saying about irrelevant tangents.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

When you expend so much time and effort going to the mat to defend something as insanely stupid as the argument in question it's going to stick to you like glue as an illustration of just how completely full of shit you are.

[Krychek_2]

I haven't said anything about it in months; you're the one who seems to think it's on point.

I also got laughed at for arguing, in the 1980s, that laws against sex discrimination included sexual orientation discrimination. A couple of terms ago the US Supreme Court agreed with me. Don't laugh; I may turn out to be right on this one too. Which is as much "going to the mat" to defend it as I'm going to do in this thread, given that it's completely off topic.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I haven't said anything about it in months; you're the one who seems to think it's on point.

It was an excellent illustration of just how pig-headedly stupid you really are.

I also got laughed at for arguing, in the 1980s, that laws against sex discrimination included sexual orientation discrimination.

That you think that somehow makes your assertion about fetuses and trespassing any less idiotic doesn't really say what you think it says.

[Krychek_2]

And your comment is an example of how pig headedly you persist in going off on tangents because you've got nothing on the central point.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He is guilty of slight hyperbole. Are you really so desperate for a “win” that you need to focus on the word zero?

Making a blanket assertion...especially one that you cannot possibly know to be true...that there are no members of a population that numbers in the tens of millions of individuals that hold a particular belief...a belief that that there is an actual organization devoted to promoting...is a lot of things, but "slight hyperbole" isn't one of them.

[David Welker]

It is slight hyberbole because it isn’t that far from the truth. He could have said “essentially zero” instead of zero and been accurate.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is slight hyberbole because it isn’t that far from the truth. He could have said “essentially zero” instead of zero and been accurate.

And you know this...how?

[Sarcastr0]

Why does this matter precision pedantry matter to you? S the point invalid?

[Krychek_2]

It's because it's all he's got. If this blog had a rule requiring that comments be on point and that irrelevant tangents aren't allowed, Wuz would have nothing to say.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm already well aware that you don't consider the truth to be of any importance.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's because it's all he's got. If this blog had a rule requiring that comments be on point and that irrelevant tangents aren't allowed, Wuz would have nothing to say.

So the comments I've taken issue with are all on point rather than being irrelevant tangents? OK. So then they're fair game.

[Krychek_2]

Wuz, the name of the logical fallacy you've just committed is "affirming the consequent." I'm sure you can google it if you're not familiar with it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So...no answer as to how either of you know that the number is "essentially zero".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What facts do you have available to claim it isn't? Are you really going to argue that a countable, sizeable number of any political persuasion is ok with pedophilia?

Your only contribution here is to be a pedantic, arrogant asshole who's wrong about everything.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What facts do you have available to claim it isn't?

The onus of support is on the one making the claim, not the one questioning it. When you're reduced to (or in your case, remaining at such a low level) arguing that an unsupported claim must be accepted as true in the absence of any evidence to support it, or any reason to think the claimant has any way of knowing it to be true then it's time for you to just stop talking.

[Krychek_2]

And Wuz, you're the one claiming there are Democratic politicians who support NAMBLA. So the onus of proof for that claim is on you. (Or should I say anus since that's where you pull most of the stuff you say.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And Wuz, you're the one claiming there are Democratic politicians who support NAMBLA.

No, you stupid SOB...I'm not making any such claim.

[Krychek_2]

Are you claiming you contribute anything of value to these conversations?

[Krychek_2]

Off the top of my head, I'm unfamiliar with any Democrat who is a member of NAMBLA or sympathetic, either publicly or privately. (I'm limiting it to Democratic officeholders; among the tens of millions of registered Democratic voters you can probably find someone who believes just about anything, but that's true of Republican voters too.) Can you name any?

Forty years ago NAMBLA was allowed to march in the San Francisco gay pride parade under threat of bringing a lawsuit if they weren't allowed to march; the march organizers did everything they could to make it crystal clear that NAMBLA wasn't welcome and was only being allowed in because they had threatened a lawsuit. The following year, the parade organizers told NAMBLA to sue if they wanted to but they weren't being allowed in the parade; to my knowledge NAMBLA hasn't marched since. That has not stopped homophobes from making the claim that the gay movement, and its supporters in the Democratic party, welcome NAMBLA to march in its parades.

But I'm not aware of any Democratic office holder who is actually pro-NAMBLA, and if one were, I'm quite certain we would have heard about it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Off the top of my head, I'm unfamiliar with any Democrat who is a member of NAMBLA or sympathetic, either publicly or privately.

That you're too stupid to grasp the difference between "I personally am not familiar with any 'X's who thinks 'Y'" and "There are no 'X's who think 'Y'" comes as no surprise.

[David Welker]

You are harping on a side point while not addressing the large point.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, he does that.

Large point: Can you name any Democrats who are sympathetic to NAMBLA?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Large point: Can you name any Democrats who are sympathetic to NAMBLA?

There's no need to continue proving my point.

[Krychek_2]

OK, I accept your concession.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

OK, I accept your concession.

Sure, in the same way that Napoleon accepted the Duke of Wellington's surrender.

[Krychek_2]

Unlike you, Napoleon knew he'd been defeated.

You're the one claiming there are Democrats who support NAMBLA. You're the one with the burden of proof.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're the one claiming there are Democrats who support NAMBLA.

Again, you're a liar and/or a moron. I've made no such claim.

[Krychek_2]

Are you claiming to be a sentient life form? Because that would assume facts not in evidence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I can understand why you're so eager to defend stupid comments, given your own predilection for making them.

[Krychek_2]

Wait, he's now defending you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You argue like a slow 9 year-old.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I'd never heard of NAMBLA before you mentioned it today. Had to look it up.

Looks like of the two of us you're much more likely to know the, uh, inclination of the members. If you catch my drift.

[Sarcastr0]

You are better than this comment.

NAMBLA was a well known horror show in the 90s. Knowing what it is doesn’t make you more likely to be a pedo.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You are better than this comment.

That claim is always amusing. Clearly he's not "better than that comment". If he were then he wouldn't have made it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know what....fuck that guy. I literally never heard of NAMBLA before today. Make what you want of it, but it's the truth.

So whatever. The idiot is asking for it.

You recognize he was saying I was defending pedos, right? So whatever.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You know what....fuck that guy. I literally never heard of NAMBLA before today. Make what you want of it, but it's the truth.

Given that you go on to lie about what was said in this very subthread, with that lie being easily discernible simply by scrolling up, only a fool would accept any claims from you regarding "the truth".

So whatever. The idiot is asking for it.

Your ignorance doesn't make anyone an idiot...except you.

You recognize he was saying I was defending pedos, right? So whatever.

I suppose it's possible that you're just ridiculously illiterate, but the evidence so far suggests that you're just a good old-fashioned liar. Here's what you said:

There are zero democrats who are fine with pedophilia if it’s male on male.

My response to that:

So you're asserting that there are NO democrats who are either members of NAMBLA or sympathetic (either openly or privately) to its goals? Now is it you come by this omniscience?

Nowhere in the English-speaking world is that even REMOTELY in the same zip code as an accusation of you "defending pedos". It was a question about your claim and how it is you can possibly know what tens of millions of strangers are/aren't "fine with".

So which is it? Are you an idiot, or are you just a (bad) liar?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'd never heard of NAMBLA before you mentioned it today. Had to look it up.

You're either a liar or a complete moron.

Looks like of the two of us you're much more likely to know the, uh, inclination of the members. If you catch my drift.

I'm going to go with "You're a liar"...and an incompetent one at that.

[David Nieporent]

The funny thing here is that if Moore weren't a heterosexual, the left would likely be celebrating his behavior, not condemning it.

The funny — and by "funny," I mean "pathetic" — thing is that you probably actually do believe this.

[Curle]

Correct. The Left would be burying it.

[Voize of Reazon]

Curle, did "the left" bury the allegations against Kevin Spacey?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is this guy supposed to be some sort of role model for sexual predators?

No, nor is anyone suggesting any such thing. In fact the the general consensus is that the behavior actually engaged in was "icky", at best. In any event, the point of the story is not that Moore is some sort of awesome citizen, but that news sources published factually false and defamatory accusations about him. Whether or not you think the legal/not legal distinction is also a moral one, it is in fact an important distinction when making such accusations, and it is important to hold news media accountable for playing fast and loose with the facts.

[David Welker]

Defamation is supposed to compensate for damages to reputation. The proper damages award here is $1, not $8.6 million.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Defamation is supposed to compensate for damages to reputation. The proper damages award here is $1, not $8.6 million.

OK. Are there any other points that are utterly irrelevant to what I said that you'd like to share?

[David Welker]

I don’t see how it is irrelevant. If you want to hold the news media accountable, using a sexual predator deserving of a nominal damages award is not a great vehicle.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t see how it is irrelevant. If you want to hold the news media accountable, using a sexual predator deserving of a nominal damages award is not a great vehicle.

Your, my or anyone else's opinion of Moore, and what one might think he "deserves" is completely irrelevant to the subject of whether or not the allegations against him were intentionally dishonest and merited accountability. If your argument is that it's OK to intentionally lie about someone so long as that someone has moral failings...even severe ones...then you need to get off your holier-than-thou soapbox and engage in a bit of self-reflection.

[Krychek_2]

No one here has made that argument.

There's a somewhat related argument in that there is such a thing as being defamation-proof, meaning someone's reputation is already so bad that nothing anyone could say could make his already bad reputation any worse. If someone claimed that Ted Bundy had 200 victims, and he only had 50 (I'm just making up those numbers to make a point), that would be defamatory, but I'm not sure anyone would care. Would anyone think less of Ted Bundy over a dispute about the number of victims? No, his reputation is already so bad that a claim of more victims wouldn't really move the needle any.

But I haven't heard anyone make that argument about Roy Moore either. And he probably would have won the election if not for the stories about him being a pedophile.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There's a somewhat related argument in that there is such a thing as being defamation-proof, meaning someone's reputation is already so bad that nothing anyone could say could make his already bad reputation any worse.

His reputation wasn't bad enough to prevent him from winning reelection to the Chief Justice position on the AL Supreme Court in 2012. And the allegations that are the subject of this suit weren't made generally public until Nov. 2017. And even those allegations weren't as damaging as the one that was created (or at least strongly implied) by the mall ad's juxtaposition of quotes (of unsubstantiated allegations).

[Krychek_2]

And as I said, Moore probably would have won election to the Senate if not for the stories about him being a pedophile. So he likely was not defamation-proof. But defamation-proof is a real concept.

[David Welker]

The jury did not have to find that the defendant lied. It only had to find that the defendant engaged in “reckless disregard” for the truth.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The jury did not have to find that the defendant lied. It only had to find that the defendant engaged in “reckless disregard” for the truth.

So that's OK? I'm not sure what your point is here.

[David Welker]

As someone who thinks the distinction between “essentially zero” and “zero” is of large importance, I would think you would understand that the difference between lying (an intentional act) and not lying would be important from a moral perspective. In both cases, on has to pay compensatory damages in a defamation case, but lying is worse.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I would think you would understand that the difference between lying (an intentional act) and not lying would be important from a moral perspective.

I'm well aware of the difference....and I did not make any argument that the two things were not different from a moral perspective. Regardless of what Moore's attorneys were able to prove to a jury's satisfaction, if you think what the PAC did was accidental then you're even more of an idiot that I thought.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, more like $8,599,999 I suspect, since everyone but you actually understands the distinction between dating women above and below the age of consent. So he loses YOUR dollar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reasonable, decent people found Roy Moore's described (in some cases, I believe, admitted) conduct objectionable if not disgusting.

Socially awkward, disaffected right-wingers might see it differently.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unlike sophisticated liberals such as you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am an educated member of the liberal-libertarian mainstream and dislike bigots. This seems to bother disaffected, right-wing culture war casualties.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Defamation is supposed to compensate for damages to reputation. The proper damages award here is $1, not $8.6 million.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of punitive damages, or are you intentionally ignoring them?

[David Welker]

The jury here awarded only compensatory damages. It appears you have a general grudge against the media. But this case is not a sympathetic vehicle to vindicate that grudge. Can’t you find someone who has been harmed who is not a sexual predator?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The jury here awarded only compensatory damages.

My comment was with regard to your claim that, "Defamation is supposed to compensate for damages to reputation." Also, the award was $8.2 million, not $8.6 million. But that's beside the point...which is your attempt to pretend that what you consider to be an excessive damages award somehow justifies your stupid, "Is this guy supposed to be some sort of role model for sexual predators?" straw man.

It appears you have a general grudge against the media.

Since I've neither said nor implied anything at all about the media in general, nor even about any members thereof beyond the parties involved in the suit, we can write that comment off as a pathetic tactic by a liar.

But this case is not a sympathetic vehicle to vindicate that grudge. Can’t you find someone who has been harmed who is not a sexual predator?

As already explained, moral judgements about Moore's personal failings and whether or not the suit is a "great vehicle" for anything are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's OK for media to lie about people (especially if it was part of an attempt to influence an election).

TL;DR version: You're engaging in straw man arguments, tossing around red herrings and are just generally full of shit.

[David Welker]

That you bring up the 8.2 million versus 8.6 million number illustrates what was said about you above. You are so desperate for a “win” that you will bring up any side issue. You are completely correct that the amount is $8.2 million. And if I had to pay the judgment, I would care about the difference. But I don’t have to pay the judgment and neither do you. The error concerns an unimportant (to this conversation) side issue.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That you bring up the 8.2 million versus 8.6 million number illustrates what was said about you above. You are so desperate for a “win” that you will bring up any side issue.

That you devote so much time to whining about a tiny fraction of the post you're responding to makes you a hypocrite (in addition to being a liar).

[David Welker]

First you say:

it is important to hold news media accountable for playing fast and loose with the facts

Then you say:

Since I've neither said nor implied anything at all about the media in general

It looks like your short-term memory experienced a little failure. Happens to everyone.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First you say:

it is important to hold news media accountable for playing fast and loose with the facts

Then you say:

Since I've neither said nor implied anything at all about the media in general

It looks like your short-term memory experienced a little failure. Happens to everyone.

I find it difficult to believe that even you are this stupid. If you say, "I think it important to hold people accountable for committing murder" should we conclude that you have an axe to grind with all of humanity?

Grow the hell up.

[David Welker]

Your second statement was, “I have neither said nor implied anything about the media in general.”

That statement was inaccurate. Period.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your second statement was, “I have neither said nor implied anything about the media in general.”

That statement was inaccurate. Period.

LOL! And you're accusing me of being pedantic? Or are you really such a moron that you don't comprehend the importance of context when interpreting written English? In this case, there are two instances in which you appear (or want to appear) oblivious to that concept.

1) "it is important to hold news media accountable for playing fast and loose with the facts" refers to members of the news media who play fast and loose with the facts...not the news media "in general". This should be blindingly apparent to anyone with an at least double-digit IQ.

2) The context in which the statement you quoted above was made makes it similarly clear that it refers to the fact that I did not make any statements about " the media in general" "playing fast and loose with the facts". ie, there was no statement made by me critical of "the news media in general", or about "the news media in general at all", rendering your allegation that I "have a general grudge against the media" an obvious exercise in disingenuous bullshit.

It never ceases to amaze me just how eager assholes like you are to advertise your pathological dishonesty, and to rely on it so heavily even given just how bad you are at it.

[David Nieporent]

Are you unfamiliar with facts? This was a compensatory damages award, not a punitive damages award.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Are you unfamiliar with facts? This was a compensatory damages award, not a punitive damages award.

Maybe make an effort to understand what is being said before being so quick on the trigger. My response was to the "Defamation is supposed to compensate for damages to reputation." claim.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah so off topic pedantry again!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Ah so off topic pedantry again!

LOL! The beginning of his comment, which formed the basis for the rest of it is "off topic pedantry"? You really suck at this.

[John F. Carr]

The reputation damages from the truth -- a 30 year old hit on teenage girls in the 1980s -- are for the jury to decide. But I agree on alternative grounds: I do not see $8.2 million in total damages.

[Kazinski]

Quit stigmatizimg Minor Attracted Persons, its a real issue.
Here's a debate with both sides presented: https://youtu.be/z31dKNKapO4

I do have some experience with the issue, I met my wife when she was 16, but she didn't move in with me until a week after her 17th birthday that was legal then in California.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Good grief.

[Aunt Teefah]

Fucking hell, is there a single right winger on this site that isn't a depraved predator? Truly sick stuff.

[Kazinski]

I should say I met my ex-wife at 16, I was 22, we were married 35 years and had 3 kids.

That's normal, not depraved.

Of course my current wife is 30 years younger than me but still in her 30's when we got married.

That's how I roll.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not the 1980s anymore. Morals change.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You say "Minor Attracted Person," but you really mean pedophiles.

I noticed that you didn't mention the age difference between you and your wife. I wonder why...

[M L]

My grandmother married my grandfather when she was a teenager and he was mid-thirties. But I think such things were seen differently a short time ago.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

By hillbillies, maybe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was Jeffery Epstein a hillbilly, or is it wrong only if you marry a younger girl?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Jeffrey Epstein was a comprehensively lousy person.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about the people who associated and traveled with him?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense a number of people -- starting with Leslie Wexner -- have a lot of explaining to do concerning several aspects of Epstein's conduct and circumstances.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that Donald Trump is also a comprehensively lousy person.

[Curle]

Jeffrey Epstein was an spy AND an lousy person. Not 100% clear where the perving intersected with the honeypotting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still plenty of "May-December" couples out there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With 16-year-olds?

That's a Deliverance spin-off.

[Sarcastr0]

What are you defending exactly?

I hope never to see you talk about grooming again.

[ragebot]

Did anybody here actually go to junior high school and remember what the girls and boys were doing? Not to mention how many high school girls got pregnant.

I am not saying it is a good thing that 14, 15, and 16 year old girls get pregnant; just that any realistic viewing of the numbers indicates it is happening.

[John F. Carr]

Jason Isbell wrote "Children of Children" about his family's history of having children at a young age. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlKz4Y5mVVA

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course there were and still are teachers, male and female, having relations with their students.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is this supposed to be a defense of Justice Moore?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would you think that? Roy Moore claimed he was defamed and a jury agreed.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be saying more than that, he never did anything wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Want to rephrase that in English?

[Sarcastr0]

You are defending Moores actions beyond the case here. Which remain some pretty bad actions. Like punch you if it was my daughter actions.

Amazing what modern Puritains will defend to own the libs.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think anything I've posted here was a defense of Moore.If my posts implied that to you then we had a failure to communicate
If it were my daughter I would not be happy and would put an end to it, quickly. However this case was about an incident that occurred decades earlier and how it was spun by the media involved to harm Moore politically. I think the verdict was the right one.

[David Nieporent]

I am not saying it is a good thing that 14, 15, and 16 year old girls get pregnant; just that any realistic viewing of the numbers indicates it is happening.

With high school, and occasionally college, boys, not normally with 30-year olds.

[Mr. Bumble]

"With high school, and occasionally college, boys, not normally with 30-year olds."

How about 30, 40, 50 year old college professors hitting in freshman women and me?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think anyone is going to defend that?

Or is this just some lame tu quoque attempt to defend hitting on underage girls?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Unfortunately I have seen many defenses of that, including top executives at a government lab with 1000 students on site, while discussing a "values statement" refusing to have a rule, "no sex with students.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure but in here only Republicans make partisan defenses for that behavior.

[Bubba Jones]

All the more reason to keep the creepy old men away from them.

[Aunt Teefah]

Really gotta love the conservative values on display in these comments. Looks like the "groomers" were inside the house all along.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gee, seems like we're actually capable of distinguishing between icky and criminal.

[Aunt Teefah]

Right, "groomer" is for when a teacher has blue hair and uses pronouns. Creeping on 14 year olds, and dating 16 year olds, and developing a reputation as a child predator sufficient to get banned from a mall in 1980s Alabama? Clearly a decent man victimized by a liberal conspiracy!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

and developing a reputation as a child predator sufficient to get banned from a mall in 1980s Alabama?

You do know that there is no record at all of Moore being banned from any mall...at any time...for any reason...and that the allegation remains just an unsubstantiated rumor, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's amazing how much stuff "everybody knew" can suddenly appear out of nowhere, once it becomes politically useful. And none of it documented at the time, strangely enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Moore doesn’t like them young at all - it’s just hat media at it again!

Look stuff up before you decide to defend someone like this Brett.

Though I see you have the usual libertarian position on age of consent laws…’technically it’s called ephibo…’

Oy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he liked them young. Let's be clear about this: That's common enough that the term "jail bait" is widely understood. Guys of any age thinking 16 year old girls look hot is hardly weird.

The defamation wasn't about him liking them "young", it was about him liking them below the age of consent. And all sorts of nasty allegations that only surfaced after the Democratic party decided they were politically useful.

My position is clear: I don't credit politically useful allegations concerning decades old events that lack contemporaneous records.

[Sarcastr0]

That allegation is as pretty true though.

He was known for badgering underage girls. Do you deny this?

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on what you mean by "badgering", I suppose, and when you mean he was known for it.

As far as I can tell, a lot of his 'reputation' got retroconned in after the Democrats settled on this approach to defeating him.

Again, "I don't credit politically useful allegations concerning decades old events that lack contemporaneous records." You got any of those?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

But you'll buy into every conspiracy theory for free?

You and Blackman have some 'interesting' standards - and by that, I mean they're purely political and shift whenever necessary to conform to your biases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't credit politically useful allegations concerning decades old events that lack contemporaneous records. "

Birther Brett's lack of self-awareness seems comprehensive.

[Aunt Teefah]

Well, it was substantiated enough that even the Trump-appointed judge who ruled in Moore's favor (on questionable legal grounds) on other aspects did not let *that* theory get to the jury.

From the opinion: "previous reports support a statement that authorities banned Moore from the mall, in part, because Moore solicited young girls. (See docs. 136-8 at 2, 136-4 at 2–4,
136-9 at 1, 136-11 at 1, 136-12 at 1, 136-15 at 1, 136-18 at 3, 147-1 at 2). 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.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're saying that Wuz lied again?

Shocking.

[Kazinski]

I'm not defending Moore, nor would I vote for him, but the difference of what he did, and the libel is the difference between walking out of the grocery store knowing the cashier didn't charge you for the dog food under the cart and then being accused of armed robbery.

He did a something unsavory but the Senate Majority PAC said he committed a felony.

[Bubba Jones]

Except this case has it backwards.

It's icky that he did it.

I can imagine how the article was technically libel, but in no way materially misrepresented his character.

He didn't solicit the 14 year old for sex. He merely stalked her at work over a period of 2 years. In a way that drew the attention of other adults who felt the need to put a stop to it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

He didn't solicit the 14 year old for sex. He merely stalked her at work over a period of 2 years.

Uh, that wasn't even alleged by anyone, so you're just making shit up.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What he sued over was not that different from what he has admitted doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the same way that suing over being accused of robbing a bank is not so different from admitting to having made withdrawals from you own checking account, sure.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think that is Brett’s claimed lord and savior, so he has been providing the Christian perspective on 30-year-olds chasing 14- and 16-year-olds.

Carry on, clingers.

[Voize of Reazon]

He might be one of those people who thought if he "made withdrawals from [his] own account" he would go blind.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'd better stick to posting SC decisions.