Judge Roy Moore Wins $8.2 Million Defamation Judgment Against Senate Majority PAC

[Swordsmyth]

The Senate Majority PAC, the Democrat swamp apparatus in Washington D.C., is being forced to pay a $8.2 million judgment to Judge Roy Moore after a jury found them guilty of defamation.

The Senate Majority PAC helped Democrats win a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama back in 2017, killing Moore’s chances to win as an outsider. The destruction of his campaign included circulating ads with false accusations that insinuated Moore is a pedophile.

The claim deemed defamatory by the court was used by the Senate Majority PAC in their “Shopping Mall Ad” against Moore. It claimed falsely that Moore was “actually banned from the Gadsden mall for soliciting sex from young girls.” Now, they will have to pay $8.2 for their scurrilous accusations.

“This is a huge blow to a major super PAC out of Washington D.C. That interfered in a senate election in the state of Alabama. The people of this state are tired of the dirty politics and attempts by the establishment in Washington DC to control who the people of this state elect to the United States Senate. I feel this is vindication and I give thanks to Almighty God and the jurors in this case for a great victory over the corrupt political system,” Moore said in a press release after the verdict.

“The verdict by this jury of regular people of the state of Alabama represents a great legal victory over those who will say and do anything to capture an election including dragging the name of a good man through the mud to destroy a hard earned reputation. The facts of this case were so egregious that the jury quickly found actual malice against the Senate majority super PAC. God’s truth and justice won the day for Judge Roy Moore,” said Jeff Wittenbrink, Moore’s attorney, in a press release.

More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/vindi...amation-judgment-against-senate-majority-pac/

 

[Working Poor]

1

 

[donnay]

Great news!

 

[CaptUSA]

Great news!

???

Seems low to me?

 

[Anti Globalist]

Good for him. Looks like he'll be getting the last laugh.

 

[TheTexan]

???

Seems low to me?

Especially considering the "muh demuhcracy" aspect.

I guess they don't put much value on democracy, as long as they're winning.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Would love to see a series of "before and after" tweets from various people who were delighted Alex Jones got hit with millions in defamation lawsuits but are horrified at this "attack on free speech" in Moore's case.

Me, personally, I'm starting to have concerns about the long term effects of these suits, even while being glad for short term "wins" by Moore or Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[pcosmar]

Would love to see a series of "before and after" tweets from various people who were delighted Alex Jones got hit with millions in defamation lawsuits but are horrified at this "attack on free speech" in Moore's case.

Me, personally, I'm starting to have concerns about the long term effects of these suits, even while being glad for short term "wins" by Moore or Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.

Freedom of Speech.. Freedom comes with Responsibility..

Far too many think it means you can say Anything..

You Can't. ,, and that needs to be reinforced.

Slander, and degrading insults, "Fighting Words",, are not protected Speech.

A Timely Lesson.

 

[tebowlives]

Love to hear stuff like this when they make people pay for their misdeeds.

 

[Matt Collins]

Freedom of Speech.. Freedom comes with Responsibility..

Far too many think it means you can say Anything..

You Can't. ,, and that needs to be reinforced.

Slander, and degrading insults, "Fighting Words",, are not protected Speech.

A Timely Lesson.

This is interesting because usually you can say anything you want against public figures and candidates so long as it isn't designed to hurt their personal business. I wonder if this case breaks new ground?

 

[pcosmar]

This is interesting because usually you can say anything you want against public figures and candidates so long as it isn't designed to hurt their personal business. I wonder if this case breaks new ground?

New Ground?? Nope

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942

 

[acptulsa]

This is interesting because usually you can say anything you want against public figures and candidates so long as it isn't designed to hurt their personal business. I wonder if this case breaks new ground?

As in, are we kissing the First Amendment goodbye?

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the OP indicated an interest in cheering on the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Partisanship is a useful lever. Nobody erodes rights faster than the very hypocrites who claim to want to preserve them. If anyone else did it, those hypocrites would actually have to object.

 

[nobody's_hero]

New Ground?? Nope

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942

Everyone on this forum has said 'fighting words' at some point.

 

[pcosmar]

Everyone on this forum has said 'fighting words' at some point.

I have invited a few to say it in person.

even provided GPS location.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

This is interesting because usually you can say anything you want against public figures and candidates so long as it isn't designed to hurt their personal business. I wonder if this case breaks new ground?

In a defamation case a public figure must prove not only that the statement was false but also that the defendant either knew his statement was false or that he made the statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Apparently Moore presented enough evidence to convince the jury of either of these elements.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As in, are we kissing the First Amendment goodbye?

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the OP indicated an interest in cheering on the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Partisanship is a useful lever. Nobody erodes rights faster than the very hypocrites who claim to want to preserve them. If anyone else did it, those hypocrites would actually have to object.

In a defamation case a public figure must prove not only that the statement was false but also that the defendant either knew his statement was false or that he made the statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Apparently Moore presented enough evidence to convince the jury of either of these elements.

Enough said.
But some people like throwing around slander and libel with no responsibility.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Would love to see a series of "before and after" tweets from various people who were delighted Alex Jones got hit with millions in defamation lawsuits but are horrified at this "attack on free speech" in Moore's case.

Me, personally, I'm starting to have concerns about the long term effects of these suits, even while being glad for short term "wins" by Moore or Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.

The AJ case was completely different, no actual malice was proven nor were his statements proven to be false.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The AJ case was completely different, no actual malice was proven nor were his statements proven to be false.

He acknowledged they were false when he admitted the shooting really happened.