PDF   Print
Id
376
Title
Roy and Kayla Moore v. Sacha Baron Cohen
Date
13/07/2021
Country
UNITED STATES (North and Central America)
Adjudication body
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Territorial scope
Domestic
Case number
21-1702-cv / 19 Civ. 4977 (JPC)
Main themes
Defamation
Intentional infliction of emotional distress or harm
Type of expression
Dark humour
Gesture or physical comedy
Political humour
Prank
Sexual, LGBTQ+, or gender humour
Television
Branch of law
Civil Law
Constitutional Law
Decision direction
Expands expression
Outcome
Exonerated
Inadmissible / Request denied / Dismissed
Relation to previous decision
Agreement
Speaker
Comedian
Gender_Man
Gender_Woman
Media outlet, company, or group
Public figure
Target
Gender_Man
Politician, public officer, or public body
Public figure
Link to analysis
Summary
The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Stewart Moore, and his wife Kayla Moore were interviewed by the satirist Sacha Baron Cohen as part of his satirical comedy series “Who is America?”. Prior to the event the Judge had been the subject of press reports about accusations of sexual misconduct with young women.
For the interview Sacha Baron Cohen disguised his appearance and passed himself off as an Israeli Anti-Terrorism Expert. During the filmed segment Cohen took out a device which he claimed could detect enzymes which were only secreted by “sex offenders and particularly paedophiles”. This device then beeped each time it got nearer to Judge Moore. The Judge left the interview.
The judge and his wife filed a lawsuit against Baton Cohen and the media companies that produced the show for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud, although he had signed a Standard Consent Agreement beforehand which purported to waive potential claims regarding the interview.
The court concluded that Judge Moore’s claims were barred by the Standard Consent Agreement whilst his wife’s were premised on reputational damage arising from a satirical segment which no reasonable person would believe given as it was an obvious satire.
The court granted summary judgment on all claims in favour of the defendants and dismissed the Moores’ claims with prejudice.