In 2017, Roy Moore ran for the U.S. Senate in Alabama amid allegations of inappropriate conduct with young women. Senate Majority PAC ran a campaign ad that juxtaposed two statements from news reports: one claiming Moore was banned from a mall for soliciting sex from young girls, and another noting he approached a 14-year-old working as a Santa's helper. Moore sued for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy, arguing the ad implied he solicited sex from that specific 14-year-old. A jury found for Moore and awarded $8.2 million, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the required constitutional standard of actual malice.
The court applied the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires a public figure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the statement with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The court emphasized that this case involved defamation by implication, where the defamatory meaning is not explicitly stated but inferred from juxtaposed facts. In such cases, the court held that a plaintiff must prove the defendant intended to communicate the specific defamatory implication, not merely that the defendant knew the individual facts were false. The court conducted an independent review of the record and found that SMP's research team fact-checked the ad's explicit statements and included citations to sources. The court reasoned that SMP's thorough vetting process and the inclusion of citations showed a lack of intent to deceive or reckless disregard. Furthermore, the court noted that the jury's disbelief of SMP witnesses' testimony regarding their intent was not, by itself, clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court concluded that while the ad could be read to imply Moore solicited sex from the 14-year-old, there was no evidence that SMP intended that specific implication or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
The district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Senate Majority PAC. This decision reinforces the high bar for proving actual malice in defamation-by-implication cases, particularly when defendants have engaged in fact-checking and provided sources for their statements.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download