Opinion ID: 1267209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: crossfire appearance

Text: Crossfire is a nationwide television program dedicated to spirited discourse of politically and socially sensitive issues approached from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Crossfire, at relevant times, was hosted by Pat Buchanan, who would express a position from the right, and other individuals taking positions from the left. The format usually includes two guests debating both sides of an issue relating to the topic of discussion on a particular program. See Braden v. News World Communications, 18 Media L.Rep. 2209, No. CA-10689'89, 1991 WL 161497 (D.C.Super.Ct. Mar. 1, 1991). [5] While we know very little about the events leading up to Judge Hey's appearance on this television program, we do know from the complaint that he did appear, and during an on-air discussion, the following colloquy occurred: By Mr. Buchanan: [I]f a divorcée moves in with her boyfriend is that legitimate grounds to take her 14 year old daughter? Well it is in West Virginia. Divorced from Rodney Roush, Judith Roush and her daughter moved in with her boyfriend; her ex-husband sued charging Judith with an unfit mother; Judge Hey agreed and gave Judith an ultimatumeither marry your boyfriend or get out of his house or give up your daughter. Does shacking up make one an unfit parent or should West Virginia law, which says yes, be thrown out as a relic of a darker age? West Virginia law, it may be an old law, but it holds that cohabitation is lewd and lascivious conduct, it deals with ... and a woman engaged in that is considered to be not of high moral character, in other words, it is legitimate consideration to the judge to make when this woman has a 13 or 14 year old daughter. So, it seems to me that he has ruled exactly as the law says he should rule. By Judge Hey: Which goes to prove one thing, Ms. Alred, you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. I would not punish a child. I would not cut off child support for a child. What I did was cut off alimony. We are not a common law state ... She's talking about love and affection as if this were a stable family unit; this is not perhaps the first boyfriend, now, I won't get into the merits of this particular case, but I will give you hypothets. She's painted it as if it were a loving family unit; normally the boyfriend with whom they're... to use your word Mr. Buchanan, not mine, shacked up with today, in front of the childrenteenage, impressionable children, is not necessarily going to be the boyfriend with whom she is living next week or even tomorrow. She said this after ... she lived with the mother, then she lived with the father, and the mother was going to lose, obviously, some child support. Now, there are two children involved, so, if the child is living with the father, the mother's child support is going to be reduced. So the mother obviously convinced the girl to come back with her. My primary concern, now I want to make this clear, is for the welfare of that child and I don't think it is in the welfare, the best interest of a child 13 years old to see her mother sleeping with a man that is not her father, and next week there may be a different man in the house, and the third week there may be a third one. I'm not into sexy kink Ms. Alred. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own quarters, but it genuinely concerns me when they do it in the presence of childrenthat concerns me. By Mr. Buchanan: Judge, would it be fair from listening to you that it wasn't simply cohabitation per se that was the totality of the problem as represented to you in that courtroom on the part of that womanthat there were other factors which induced you to say, in effect, either get out of the house lady, marry the guy or give up that little girl. By Judge Hey: Very perceptive, Mr. Buchanan. There are obviously some things I can't discuss on television. Sure there were other factors. One of which, I, as the trial judge, had the opportunity to witness the demeanor of the witnesses and there were other factors involved that I cannot publicly air because the matter is still in litigation. [6] These remarks became the core allegations of a defamation and false light complaint filed by Ms. Roush against Judge Hey, Pat Buchanan, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., and Cable News Network, Inc. [7] Judge Hey filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that he is immune from any civil liability for comments made while appearing on a television program by the application of the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that Judge Hey was judicially immune from any civil liability for the acts alleged in the complaint to have been committed by the defendant, Judge Hey.