CNN report said North Carolina candidate for governor made explicit posts on website’s message board

CNN report said North Carolina candidate for governor made explicit posts on website’s message board

Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s lieutenant governor, announced a lawsuit Tuesday against CNN over its recent report alleging he made explicit racial and sexual posts on a pornography website’s message board, calling the reporting reckless and defamatory.

The lawsuit, filed in Wake county superior court, comes less than four weeks after a television report that led many fellow GOP elected officials and candidates, including Donald Trump, to distance themselves from Robinson’s gubernatorial campaign. Robinson announced the lawsuit at a news conference in Raleigh.

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      181·
      1 month ago

      Actually he is. Calling something defamatory implies that the statement is false. The inverse is also true: if a statement is true, then it’s not defamation.

      (source: I was hyperfixated on the Depp v. Heard trial)

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      3·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, IIRC the comment was deleted not long after the story came out about it, which is insanely odd timing if he’s not the guy who left it.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        16·
        1 month ago

        True. Though if you read the original CNN article, the circumstantial evidence is fairly damning. I don’t think he has any chance of getting out from under this.

        Also, in a legal context, I think there very well may be a distinction between claiming a report is defamatory versus claiming it is false. As per Wikipedia:

        The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable

        • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          1 month ago

          distinction between claiming a report is defamatory versus claiming it is false.

          A statement is not defamatory if it’s not false. It might be embarrassing and potentially damaging, but not defamation.

          “There are five essential elements to defamation: (1) The accusation is false; and (2) it impeaches the subject’s character; and (3) it is published to a third person; and (4) it damages the reputation of the subject; and (5) that the accusation is done intentionally or with fault such as wanton disregard of facts.” - Ron Hankin, Navigating the Legal Minefield of Private Investigations: A Career-Saving Guide for Private Investigators, Detectives, And Security Police, Looseleaf Law Publications, 2008, p. 59.

          • Archer@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 month ago

            Not in South Korea. Truth is not actually a defense to a defamation claim, wildly enough

            • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              Same in Japan. I remember a case where a convicted pedophile successfully sued Google into blocking news articles saying he had been convicted of pedophilia.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            21·
            1 month ago

            Sure, but you don’t need to prove that it’s false to claim defamation. As long as the defense is unable to prove that the accusation is definitively true, it could still be considered defamation. If he were to claim the report was false, then he’d have to provide evidence to that effect. By saying that it was defamatory, he only has to demonstrate that there is a lack of 100% certainty as to whether it is true or false, shifting the burden of proof onto CNN.

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
              81·
              1 month ago

              Maybe for other countries, but this was filed in the US where that’s not the case at all. You need it to not only show it’s false, but that the person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

              The CNN report was pretty damning and with how extensively they laid out the evidence that tied Robinson was to it, it’d likely be extremely difficult to show 1) that it was false or 2) that they acted recklessly when they were pretty through

              EDIT: and to clarify the “person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” is the standard for finding fault with the person making defamation when the actual malice is used (which is the case for government officials or public figures)

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                1 month ago

                I dunno about that, because many statements are unfalsifiable. If someone accuses me of being a witch, how can I be expected to “show it’s false”? If you can show that they

                acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

                Then it’s not necessary to prove that it’s false.

                I understand and agree that the burden for proving defamation in the US is quite high, but it’s not always possible or necessary to demonstrate that the accusation is absolutely false.

                • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
                  31·
                  1 month ago

                  That’s not the alternative to proving it being false, that’s the alternative to it being knowingly false. You have to show all four of these things for US defamation

                  To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

                  It’s the 3rd fault one that is the knowingly false or reckless disregard for the truth

                  As a result, a defamation plaintiff in an American court must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false and that the defendant was at fault for publishing it. “Fault,” in the case of a government official or a “public figure,” means that the defendant published the defamatory statement with “actual malice” – which means that he knew it was false or at least recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false

                  https://www.carter-ruck.com/law-guides/defamation-and-privacy-law-in-united-states/

                  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                    1·
                    1 month ago

                    Good stuff, it seems that he probably has no chance with this lawsuit. But still

                    a false statement purporting to be fact

                    Leaves a lot of wiggle room. How is “a false statement” defined? It’s ultimately a matter of semantics.

                    I read this article which indicates that the truthfulness of the statement isn’t even the relevant legal issue, and even if it were partially false it would still not constitute defamation.

                    Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects. Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech.

                    The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments.

                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation-and-false-statements-overview

                    This agrees with what you are saying about knowingly false statements. But I never meant to say he could prove defamation, I just thought it was easier to claim than falsehood, because the story is obviously true 😅

                    But I guess defamation is actually harder to prove than I thought.