Truth-telling bloggers be warned:

You may still be held civilly liable for the consequences of your (truthful) posts, if your intent was to get someone fired - at least, if this Minnesota court gets say on the matter. I would think this verdict will be overturned on appeal (assuming the First Amendment issue has been preserved).

Jury: Blogger Johnny Northside must pay $60,000 to fired community leader | StarTribune.com

Though blogger John (Johnny Northside) Hoff told the truth when he linked ex-community leader Jerry Moore to a high-profile mortgage fraud, the scathing blog post that got Moore fired justifies $60,000 in damages, a Hennepin County jury decided Friday.

The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress. The civil verdict culminated a nearly two-year legal scuffle between John Hoff, whose blog, The Adventures of Johnny Northside, has 300 to 500 readers daily, and Moore, former director of the Jordan Area Community Council.

Moore was fired by the University of Minnesota in June 2009, the day after Hoff's post.
 

ONE

New Member
You may still be held civilly liable for the consequences of your (truthful) posts, if your intent was to get someone fired - at least, if this Minnesota court gets say on the matter. I would think this verdict will be overturned on appeal (assuming the First Amendment issue has been preserved).

Jury: Blogger Johnny Northside must pay $60,000 to fired community leader | StarTribune.com

Very interesting article -- thanks for posting.

Of note: "Attack the issues, not individuals."
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Of note: "Attack the issues, not individuals."

This individual committed a crime, which was the point of the blog post.

So some freakjobs can protest and disrupt funerals, and that is protected as "free speech". Yet a blogger cannot out a criminal, because that is libel.

Curiouser and curiouser....
 
This individual committed a crime, which was the point of the blog post.

So some freakjobs can protest and disrupt funerals, and that is protected as "free speech". Yet a blogger cannot out a criminal, because that is libel.

Curiouser and curiouser....

The claim here was actually of tortious interference. Truth is a pretty ironclad defense to libel claims. :smile:

But, again, I think this ruling has to get overturned.
 
It would have been fun to watch a lawyer try to explain tortious interference to a jury. :sigh:

True that. The subtext (that a plaintiff lawyer might hope a jury infers) would be something like this:

Yeah, I know, this all sounds like a bunch of BS - but, if you decide you like my client more than the defendant over there, you can use this as an excuse to find in favor of my client even though, you know, you probably shouldn't because, after all, all the defendant really did was tell the truth.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Yeah, I know, this all sounds like a bunch of BS - but, if you decide you like my client more than the defendant over there, you can use this as an excuse to find in favor of my client even though, you know, you probably shouldn't because, after all, all the defendant really did was tell the truth.

And...you know...it's got electrolytes....
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
True that. The subtext (that a plaintiff lawyer might hope a jury infers) would be something like this:

Yeah, I know, this all sounds like a bunch of BS - but, if you decide you like my client more than the defendant over there, you can use this as an excuse to find in favor of my client even though, you know, you probably shouldn't because, after all, all the defendant really did was tell the truth.

You initial post caused me to do a search to see why the jury might do what it did. I was looking for images, wondering if there was a "race" card at play. If for example Mr. Moore was of one race and the jury was composed of those of the same race. Then again, the liable trial my not have shown that Mr. Moore was guilty, the or the lawyer was convincing enough to have the jury believe that Mr. Moore was innocent and unjustly portrayed in the blog.
Fact is it was a civil trial and the rules are not the same as a criminal trial.
 

migtig

aka Mrs. Giant
Does this mean I should stop posting recipes and saying they are yummy? :confused:

Hello? Is this thing on? I'm actually being serious. After all, aren't almost all comments on blogs subjective? I mean, if I was to say my SIL is the best ever...could I get sued by someone who thinks their SIL is? If I was to say, doing x, y and z is easy and someone found it difficult, could I get sued?
 

Clem_Shady

New Member

You know I'm the really paranoid type and I think Tilted started this thread about me, but if it does in fact come true, I'll be a good citizen and just sit there at the Defendant's table eating my meds each day throughout the trial.

The judge will probably say something like in the Pink Floyd, The Wall movie such as "just nod if you can hear me." And I will.

They will let you bring your meds to court, won't they?

:jameo:
 

Lexib_

Blah.. Blah...Blah
You know I'm the really paranoid type and I think Tilted started this thread about me, but if it does in fact come true, I'll be a good citizen and just sit there at the Defendant's table eating my meds each day throughout the trial.

The judge will probably say something like in the Pink Floyd, The Wall movie such as "just nod if you can hear me." And I will.

They will let you bring your meds to court, won't they?

:jameo:

What's really funny is what you post online probably be used in a court of law against you.. So there went your insanity defense. :popcorn:
 
Top