“It [isn’t] defamatory to say someone watches pornography, which is a lawful activity for adults,” CNN said in its filing. “While some may disagree about the propriety of such conduct, the simple fact is that statements that someone engaged in a lawful activity are not defamatory.” CNN wants federal court to take up Robinson defamation case (WRAL5)

What a simple legal response. I like it. You can’t defame someone, “if you are not saying anything defamatory about them.” You are just stating a fact, and even if that fact is incorrect, it isn’t defamatory. It was reported that “he picked his nose and ate the bugger.” Well, even if he did, that can’t be defamatory because picking your nose and/or eating the bugger isn’t illegal. It’s probably not even morally reprehensible. And it sounds so much worse when someone else is accused of the activity, but much less offensive when done in the privacy of your own home or car. It may be offensive sounding, but not defamatory. And if you reported incorrectly? Maybe he didn’t pick his nose. Or maybe he didn’t consume the bugger. Just mistakes, that require a retraction.

However, if you can find an email, something in writing, or a recorded phone conversation that states that CNN’s purpose of the report was to hinder the candidate’s run for office, that might be another matter.

I think abortion IS killing a child, and shouldn’t be done, but I also know there is wisdom in how you deliver the message, and Mark Robinson was SO WRONG in his method of delivery. I don’t actually care about Mark Robinson or his wife (at least to a normal degree), but think about what he said, on video, and what his political opponent replayed for the public repeatedly… Robinson accused women who had an abortion, of “not being able to keep your legs together,” or “wanting to keep going to the club on Friday nights.” Don’t you think if you and your wife had an abortion, and the candidate admitted that they had publicly, you would choose to tone down your delivery? After all, the thinking person might eventually ask the question, “are you speaking from experience.” Did your wife have an abortion because she couldn’t keep her legs together, and did you both have your abortion because you both wanted to keep going out the “the club on Friday nights?” What is the old saying, “those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?”

I’m not saying you can’t learn from your mistakes. Okay, you and your wife had an abortion, and you thought you had good reasons at the time, but now you’ve changed your mind and you are vehemently against abortion. Doesn’t decorum, or at least sensitivity to your spouse, tell you not to angrily spew your beliefs to others? That angry delivery isn’t going to change anyone’s mind regarding abortion. Get a clue.

---

DA Carl Fox, who became an NC Judge in 2005, tried a case involving a “hit” and “run” that happened in October 2003.

A young man, Stephen Gates, who at the time was employed by UNC-Chapel Hill as a sports reporter, was changing a tire on an “On Ramp” of I40. A young woman driver, her boy friend (Rabah Samara) and another couple were in a Cadillac SUV, all apparently asleep except for the driver. As they came up the ramp the SUV struck Gates as he was attempting to change his tire. She apparently was not aware that she had struck someone so she continued along I40. **One report said that other drivers had seen the accident (and reported that the SUV was dragging Gate’s body and his car door beneath it) and attempted to get her to stop or pull over, which she did a few miles down I40.

She woke her boyfriend (a manager of a pizza shop in Raleigh, and of Middle Eastern descent), and when they pulled over, he got under the wheel and drove them back to Raleigh. The three asleep passengers were unaware of the accident. And apparently all had been drinking that day and were returning from “the beach” (maybe). ***It was determined that Gates was ‘in the road’ and that the driver (the young woman) was not at fault.

But, I always thought there were “hinky” parts of this event and trial (short as it was, since it never should have happened). There was some kind of deal struck with the young woman driver in which she would not be held responsible and would testify (to what I don’t know), but a case was still brought to court and the young woman’s boyfriend was charged. With what I don’t know. He wasn’t driving at the time of the accident, so why even waste the State’s time and money with a case of “hit and run” when he didn’t hit, but he did drive all away from the area? I mentioned that the man was “Middle Eastern,” and I think that was important to the case even coming to trial. You’ve got to remember that this was just a couple of years after 9-11.

Shouldn’t the DA have asked who was driving at the time of the accident and then immediately dropped that case against the pizza manager/boyfriend (who WASN’T driving)? But no. The case went to trial and lasted, I heard about 30 minutes, and the charges were dropped. What does the judge (not Fox at the time, he was the DA) say? Well since you weren’t driving at the time of the accident, I guess we can’t convict you of “hit and run” because you didn’t hit.

I would say that this was a major ‘faux pas’ by the DA. But how do you reward a misstep? Yeah, make the DA a State judge a couple of years later.

Now they did enact NC legislation (appending the name of the victim, calling it “Stephen’s Law”) to make it a crime regarding “hit and run” for anyone, other than an officer of the law or a “first responder” (not what they called them back then) to drive someone “who was driving at the time” – a ‘hitter’ away from the scene. ****Now this legislation occurred about 2003 and it seemed ‘ludicrous’ (this is one of those times when using that word is appropriate) that after all the years of “hit and run” cases, legislation would have to specifically state that you had to package “hit and run” not as “hit and be driven away by someone else.” If you “hit” you couldn’t leave the scene (except if an officer of the law took you somewhere, or a ‘first responder’ put you in an ambulance and you went to the hospital, for instance), without being charged with the “run.”

I’m not sure if the person, who drives you away (or maybe has a helicopter or boat nearby) and helps remove you from the accident, can be charged in a separate “illegal removal crime.” If it’s not in that legislation, I guess more specific legislation is needed.

“Stephen’s Law” signed into law (Tar Heel Times, Oct. 4, 2005)

HIT-AND-RUN PROPOSAL ADVANCES STEPHEN GATES’ DEATH IN A 2003 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SPURS LEGISLATION TO TOUGHEN A STATE LAW. (Greensboro News & Record, Mar. 3, 2005)