After your suggestion that Moore prove the statements were false and defamatory, you wrote that he should:

1. Demonstrate it to the court of public opinion

2. Maybe even file a lawsuit.

So obviously the context for your statement was not primarily a lawsuit, it was more general—the “court of public opinion” and then maybe a lawsuit. So my response to you was not just about a possible lawsuit by Moore.

However, in a libel suit against the WaPo, Moore would have to prove a great deal more than that: actually malice.

You also write “That’s the lowest standard for libel.” Moore, of course, would have to meet an even higher standard—that for public officials—if he sued for defamation (not just falsity but knowledge of the falsity).

But let’s just imagine he’s not a public official and didn’t have to prove malice, but just falsity. Obviously, a 40-year-old allegation with few specifics (date and time, for starters) gives the person very little opportunity to prove falsity. That’s the problem we face here, even without a lawsuit. We just don’t have enough information, and neither would Moore.

How can you prove you didn’t do it, from what we do know so far? One could offer evidence that the yearbook inscription was forged (but to do that he’d have to have access to it, and he doesn’t). Or the fact that Moore ordinarily never wrote “DA” when he signed things (he wasn’t the DA, he was a deputy DA). But that would require digging up a bunch of old signatures from 40 years ago where he signed yearbooks for random people (hard to do). Or he could locate people who worked at the restaurant at the same time as the accuser who have no recollection of his ever frequenting it. Or that he didn’t even own a car back then. Or that his car was a different type of car. Or he could find some other inconsistency or falsity in her description of the event that would indicate she’s lying. The problem right now is that we (and he) just don’t have enough information to prove or disprove anything.

One of the problems with libel law is that in recent years (not originally, but in the last couple of decades) the plaintiff has been required to prove falsity, which can be very difficult with accusations that are vague but very very damaging (her statements, by the way, are considered damaging per se). Anyone who ever met someone forty years ago could accuse that person of raping them around that general time, and unless the accused could prove he was in the military overseas or something like that for the entire possible block of time, falsity could never be proved. This woman’s accusations are so vague that she doesn’t even describe the car except to say it’s “old,” and all she describes otherwise (except for the assault) are things that happened in public in the restaurant. Interesting, isn’t it, that there are so few specifics? It’s tailor-made to do the maximum damage to his reputation and his chances of winning an election, while at the same time perfect for protecting both her and the newspaper.

The state of affairs regarding libel laws gives the press license to print just about any accusation it wants as long as it involves something where falsity would be hard to prove. They could even do this about a non-public figure, although obviously they’re less motivated to do that than with a public figure.

Manju: You write: “Can Moore even demonstrate that WaPo printed false and defamatory statements about him?” How could a person do that?

That’s the lowest standard for libel, afak. Presumably, the plaintiffs in the Rolling Stone case had a good chance of doing that and presumably that’s why the Magazine settled.

We do NOT require the accused to demonstrate that the tales a witness tells are false when that accused has had no opportunity for discovery, or for cross-examination.

In the scenario you are discussing in your post, the accused is WaPo.

That seems to me to be a better idea than pointing a gun to your head and pulling the trigger because your party’s candidate apparently has a decades old past which bears comparison with Ted Kennedy’s entire life.

‘Oh gee Roy Moore was a reprobate when he was in his thirties, Guess I better allow a splintered socialist Demonicrat 2″x4″ to be shoved up my economic and political arse in order to prove I am a nice person. After all … ‘solidarity’ and ‘we are ultimately all in this together’ … and crap like that.”

However, in creepy Roy’s case it’s looking a lot like a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” situation. Here’s the latest on his apparent penchant for cruising shopping malls looking for teenage dates back in the 80s:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5079579/Roy-Moore-banned-mall-badgered-teens.html

His goose is cooked.

Off topic but sure to be of interest: Wine From Prehistoric Georgia With an 8,000-Year-Old Vintage
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/science/georgia-oldest-wine.html

You write: “Can Moore even demonstrate that WaPo printed false and defamatory statements about him?”

How could a person do that?

For example, I say that Manju raped me in (wherever Manju happened to have lived) in (choose a year in which Manju had a job in that town and was known to live in that town). It was in my apartment where I lived alone and had gone with him on a date (I had met him in the library, or the supermarket, or any random place people often go). I didn’t report it at the time because Manju threatened me. But now that Manju is running for office, I feel it’s necessary to tell my story.

Okay, Manju. Prove it didn’t happen.

Of course, I don’t know much about Manju (for all I know, Manju is a woman, for example, which would make my accusation a bit suspect). But if Manju was a public figure I’d know a lot about Manju, and would be able to look up a lot about Manju. And I would learn even more if there were people coaching me and feeding me information.

False accusations are easy-peasy, if you do a moderate amount of homework. What’s not easy (or what’s less easy) is to make them hold up in a court of law. That’s why the law makes people prove the accusations with evidence. And we get to see and hear the witnesses. And defense lawyers get to cross-examine them. That way we can see if their stories hold up.

We do NOT require the accused to demonstrate that the tales a witness tells are false when that accused has had no opportunity for discovery, or for cross-examination. We require the accuser (the state, in the case of a criminal trial) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am stunned at the number of people who don’t seem to understand how easy it is to falsely accuse. Have we learned nothing from history?

I repeat: Moore may be guilty. He may be innocent. We have no idea, and there is not a shred of evidence to tell us, only a person’s story.

And another woman comes forward with an even worse story, just a few days later. Isn’t that an amazing coincidence? Must be true, right? Prove it’s not, Manju, who’s running for office in a hotly contested and important election.

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Two of those uses of “her” are certainly unclear, so I think that passage can be read either way with regard to whether she meant it was her own private phone or whether it lived permanently in her bedroom. But when she said she gave him “her number” that could simply mean the family phone.

I do think it’s very clear, though, that when her mother told Breitbart that the “the phone in the house could get through to her easily”, she doesn’t mean her daughter could go to the phone, but that the phone could come to her.

If so, why did the mother not mention that there was an extension cord? Wouldn’t that put a phone in her room? Instead, could the mother have meant that the sole phone was easily accessible?

But the accuser said that Moore called her on her phone in her room on her number, which she had given him right after meeting him…