349
Mark Robinson sues CNN over report he wrote racist posts on porn website (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 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 2 points 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 points 1 month ago* (last edited 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.

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

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

In the US, absolutely. Much of the stuff you hear about people being terrified to be accused of defamation comes out of the UK, where the burden of proof is almost completely flipped.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
349 points (98.6% liked)

News

23287 readers
3795 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world