1. No law against it, but what he wrote seems to be a bit inappropriate, no? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-part-yearbook-inscription-attributed-to-alabama-senate-candidate.html
2. Handwriting analyst Arthur T. Anthony disagrees with you. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-signature-yearbook-handwriting-expert_us_5a2aeb19e4b0a290f0507d2b.
A bit inappropriate? I don’t think so. I think it’s fine.
I appreciate the link the the handwriting analyst but the accuser herself is saying she wrote it, now.
In other words, Gloria Allred hired that "handwriting expert", and is paying him some unknown (by us) amount of money for his stated opinion here, just days before the election.
The lawyer, who is representing Nelson ― one of several women who have accused Moore of sexual misconduct and assault ― said that at Allred’s request, an expert had analyzed the GOP Alabama Senate candidate’s handwriting and signatures in public documents and compared them to the message and signature in Young’s yearbook.
Now, if this was a matter being adjudicated in a court of law, both sides in the case would have their "handwriting analysis experts" examine the handwriting samples, and give their opinions, and they would likely come to opposite conclusions, meaning one group of experts was wrong, and probably lying. (Handwriting analysis is not an exact science, and so-called "experts" often come to differing conclusions.)
In this case, Gloria Allred has not even allowed the yearbook to be publicly released so that other "handwriting analysis experts" could independently study the handwriting, the ink, the paper, etc. Gloria Allred is a known liar. Her client is a known and admitted liar. How in the hell could anybody jump to the unlikely conclusion that this handwriting guy Gloria Allred hired is telling the truth here?