Mark Robinson sues CNN over report he wrote racist posts on porn website

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 345 points – Mark Robinson sues CNN over report he wrote racist posts on porn website
theguardian.com

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.

54

Ooooh. Discovery, you say?

Bet that will unearth even more Nazi/Porn weirdness.

Sadly it won't ever get to that phase. This is just so he can claim it's a lie between now and election day. He'll quietly drop the lawsuit about a week after the election.

I wish it were required that both parties agree to the lawsuit being dropped for it not to continue. I'd love to see this frivolous bullshit forced into a courtroom against the plaintiffs will by the defendants.

You can counter sue, so we kind of have that system.

His biggest problem is North Carolina has a big Dixiecrat/ Republican base. He was getting a pass due to having a R next to his name. Now, they will vote for a white guy.

Possibly, but I could also see WB countersuing. They really don't have much to lose there.

"Hi, Comcast? Yeah, as far back as you got em."

"Hey, Google? Yep, thanks bro."

"Hey pornhub. Yeah, everything these IPs ever touched. Thanks."

🍿

I think it's more likely that he'll demand to settle or simply drop the lawsuit. Typical SLAPP behaviour.

CNN will likely try to have it dismissed because the legal fees will surely be astronomical.

I assume a company like CNN has a law firm on retainer who is being paid whether or not they're needed.

Real news media doesn't make controversial statements about individuals unless they have proof. I am quite certain that before this story went to press, there were serious internal discussions at CNN about not only its validity, but about CNN's ability to demonstrate that validity in court.

Yep. The truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

Things have been so crazy I forgot about this. Thanks for the reminder, Mark Robinson.

Right, if he hadn't brought it up again we'd have all moved on to the next news item. Thanks Mark, and let's see how your case goes.

Well… discovery should at least be entertaining.

Seriously...does he not know that is part of the process? And to defend it they'll dig up everything and more to produce as evidence.

Problem is, it'll likely be silently settled and we'll never hear about it again and he can just lie and say he won or some shit.

He's not planning to get that far... Just needs the optics a few weeks before the election and then, win or lose, will drop the case without going through discovery.

"Calling the report reckless and defamatory" but not incorrect.

Defamatory implies it's false

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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/

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.

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.

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)

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.

Wasn't CNN like crazy-careful about documentation, proof, and public records? Good luck, you weird racist MAGA pervert-freak...

It’s almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit as a public person. This is just being used as a flimsy shield before the election to try to give his denials some credibility. The standard is so high that unless someone at CNN was recorded as admitting to making this up then this case won’t make it very far.

That's foolish of him, because as defendants they now have standing to subpoena. He will be proven to be a weird fucking pervert in civil court.

His public comments are equally as disgusting.

Ah, the old Trumpian tactic of suing someone for telling the truth.

I'm betting Warner Bros. has more money and better lawyers than you, Mark.

Oh look, North Carolina just happens to be one of the states with no anti-SLAPP laws on the books.

Bet, lets move on to discovery.

This will be an interesting court case.

If cnn can prove what they reported then he's just digging a deeper hole.

If cnn can't prove it they are in deep doggy doo doo.

I'm going out on a limb, just a hunch really, and I think CNN will come out of this just fine. Robinson is the man with a shovel, and he's gonna dig.

i'd venture to guess they wouldn't publish something like this without some pretty ironclad "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof it was him

Its pretty obvious. They use the idea of reasonable doubt in the investigation, but then point out specific instances of him basically saying the same thing on both Twitter and Nude Africa, using terms of phrase that are very uncommon, generally on the same day. It was pretty damning.

Robinson's entire defense so far has been to claim this is a hoax and when asked how posts on pages going back years can be hoaxed, he gives a "trust me, bro" response.

Yeah, the dude got caught dead to rights. This is a poor attempt at damage control but an excellent example of the Streisand effect. Whether he wins or loses in November I expect the suit will be dropped after the election because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Whether he wins or loses in November

NC went to trump in 2020, but had also reelected cooper (D) for governor. robinson's been polling at 40% or below against stein's >50%, so it's looking pretty grim for black nazi

This is an unfortunate tradition of having a Democrat governor but Republican for NC Congress and higher. It's no indicator of any potential. However, I do think we have another chance to do 2008 again, despite all the work the GOP has put into preventing more voters.

If cnn can’t prove it they are in deep doggy doo doo.

Not really. They came with the receipts, showing time after time that the commenter shared personal details and used indiosyncratic turns of phrase that Robinson repeated on public accounts and forums. They had a very reasonable belief that it was true, and never claimed more than that. In the US, for a public figure, that's generally more than enough.

Either way someone’s getting that doo-doo feces thrown all over the walls, the floor, the ceiling, and it will stink so bad