Blogger Fined $60K For Telling the Truth

jfruhlinger writes "'Johnny Northside,' a Minneapolis blogger with less than 500 readers a day, revealed that a University of Minnesota researcher studying mortgage fraud had been involved in a fraudulent mortgage himself; the blog post was at least partially responsible for the researcher losing his job. The researcher then sued the blogger and won — despite the blogger having his facts straight. Johnny Northside plans to appeal the verdict."

Comments

This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The title says it all.

Remember this while the government works hard to eliminate all anonymous speech on the Internet.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[unity100]

mod up.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Aerorae]

This is why we need a fast enough version of TOR such that the whole world can use it in place of the regular web.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Having wikileaks is an effect of things like this. And it's not a good thing.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[MoonBuggy]

On a somewhat related note, the British government is apparently issuing "super injunctions". We don't know why, of course, because the hearings are sealed and (usually) even the existence of the injunction can't be reported on - the only reason this one became public is because one of the few decent MPs used their parliamentary privilege to question it on the record. It's not even conceivably a matter of national security (their go-to excuse), since it's preventing the papers from reporting on the affairs of one of the key figures in the UK's banking collapse.

When this is how the governments are behaving, I honestly wonder whether there's a viable choice other than Wikileaks-style [vigilantism/civil disobedience]?

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

On a somewhat related note, the British government is apparently issuing "super injunctions".

FFS. It's not the government, it's the judiciary. There is a difference, you know.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[yelvington]

(sigh)

Civil case between individuals, not government prosecution. And quite possibly heading for reversal on appeal.

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2011/03/14/26584/johnny_northside_damn_right_were_appealing_60000_judgment

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

well, yes and no, it's all 'government' in the eyes of the outside world (if it ever got to Strasbourg, for instance, the government would have to answer for the judiciary's actions). The judiciary issue the orders, Parliament is responsible for the law being in such a state that such orders can be issued, and the 'government' is responsible for not bringing up changes to the law. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Still, it's pretty old news, super-injunctions have been around for a number of years now.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks=retreat

We should charge head on! Back this guy up. Campaigns, protests, just being load and annoying. Wikileaks is important, but it shouldn't have to come to that

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. You caught us. We (The Government!) were secretly orchestrating this case in order to set legal precedent favorable to our own agenda. And we would have done it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[sabt-pestnu]

On the one hand, "super injunctions" themselves aren't news in the sense of being "a new thing".

On the other hand, they aren't news because, you know, you aren't allowed to report their existence....

As to "not the government", I would have to disagree. Just as with National Security Letters, there have to be legal underpinnings allowing such a concept. If the law didn't permit these "super-injunctions", they could not survive. Of course, I don't know that they have been challenged in court yet. Apparently the Trafigura order got nulled before it could reach court. And The Guardian has been served with almost one a month in 2009. That's a lot of court challenges it would have to undertake in the cause of freedom of speech. I imagine that they have to pick their battles. Perhaps the United Kingdom needs it's own version of the ACLU.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[radio4fan]

FFS. It's not the government, it's the judiciary. There is a difference, you know.

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, you know.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[zill]

The judiciary branch of the government is always part of the government. No exceptions. I'm tired of people thinking the courts are somehow above the law and above the democratic process.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[epine]

The title says it all.

Another government basher content to never read past the title getting up-voted insightful. I was watching "Yes Minister" reruns the other day, a skewer of infinitely greater penetration. Every idiot can see the disease, but only the idiots know the cure. You could match the script line for line with corporate boardroom politics. And all the worst disasters I know of consisted of a marriage between the two.

The man lost his defense for "tortious interference". He shouldn't have mentioned the man's employment. He could have asked around this matter on the subject of University of Minnesota employee conduct standards. He could have taken credit for fuelling the investigation rather than it's outcome.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[AK Marc]

The finding is endorsed and enforced by the government. And was handled under the government rules that allowed it to get to that point, rather than being thrown out. So it the government most certainly was involved and it was government rules enforced by the jury.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The finding is endorsed and enforced by the government. And was handled under the government rules that allowed it to get to that point, rather than being thrown out. So it the government most certainly was involved and it was government rules enforced by the jury.

The finding is enforced by the government. That's how secular courts work. However, unless the State joined either side, it is merely following the verdict that the jury gave.

Anyway, the same government rules that allowed it to "get to that point" are also allowing it to be appealed... I guess it would be inconvenient to your delusions to mention that.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Kosi]

And having police (not the Band!) is an effect of things like criminals. Yes, I would be fine with an utopia without a need for laws and law enforcers, but that doesn't make police a bad thing in general (although what I read about police sometimes can give me that feeling).

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[sjames]

It probably will be reversed. After it costs the defendant an obscene amount of time and money. And even though it is civil court, it's still court and that is government. The court compelled the defendant to appear and the court instructed the jury. Unless reversed, the court will dictate that the defendant hand over the money.

In a climate where the courts are capricious and expensive even for the winning defendant, anonymous speech is a necessity if we are to say the things that need to be said.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And, let's not forget, The Government is a bunch of guys who have friends, and those friends are men with guns and a government issued license to use them. You really don't want to be on their bad side.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's also wasting his time. Yes! Thank you government for letting me get into this situation in the first place! I mean, sure, that shouldn't have happened, but you're awesome for being less evil than usual and letting me try again!

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

That is *a* solution, but it is a lesser, reactive solution - the better approach is to keep the oppressive powers from taking those rights to begin with. If, for instance, we fall back to a "fringe" or non-sanctioned approach to free speech, they have the option to segregate and dominate. Gotta make time to attend rallies and protests, first - the technical solutions won't last once they gain the upper hand.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[mldi]

That's only effective they would ever solve the exit nodes problem (whoever runs it can view all unencrypted information across it). Besides that obvious flaw, how would TOR solve anything? This person wasn't trying to be anonymous?

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[ToasterMonkey]

The title says it all.

Remember this while the government works hard to eliminate all anonymous speech on the Internet.

How about learning to read?

District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the COMMENTS of others ON THE BLOG. With respect to the remaining statement, the JURY agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.

Don Allen was originally named as a co-defendant because he sent a letter to the U of M urging Moore's termination, then copied the letter to Hoff's blog. Before the case went to trial, he settled with Moore and testified against Hoff. Allen, who operates his own blog, "The Independent Business News Network," applauded the verdict.

"It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals."

There's the truth, then there's The Truth (TM)**

** Bill_the_Engineer wears smelly socks and should be banned from Slashdot because he stinks.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[gmhowell]

FFS. It's not the government, it's the judiciary. There is a difference, you know.

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, you know.

Wait, the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince Andrew are considered different branches these days?

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[russotto]

The man lost his defense for "tortious interference". He shouldn't have mentioned the man's employment. He could have asked around this matter on the subject of University of Minnesota employee conduct standards. He could have taken credit for fuelling the investigation rather than it's outcome.

So if a fast food employee is rude to me and I deliberately set out to get her fired by telling all and sundry (including her boss) that she was rude to me, I am liable to her for the result? Actually, it appears that under Minnesota law, that is the case -- "Interference is not justified when it is done for the indirect purpose of injuring the plaintiff or benefiting the defendant". Which leaves the First Amendment. If the absolute nature of truth as a defense to a libel claim is grounded in the First Amendment, then it must also cover a tortious interference claim when the only interference is speech.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not issued by "the government", except in the broadest possible sense. It's issued by a court, acting under laws put in place by successive governments. The first "super-injunction" I heard of was in 2009, but the law goes back at least to the RIPA 2000, which forbad you from disclosing to anyone - even your own lawyer - that you had been forced to hand over an encryption key.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Which part should I read?

Don Allen had direct contact with Moore's employer by sending that letter urging Moore's termination, and then copied that same letter to John Hoff's blog. Don Allen settled with Moore and testified against Hoff. Allen then used his own blog to applaud the verdict against Hoff.

The WTF? moment is when Don Allen (aka the person who contacted Moore's boss) was quoted as "It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals."

From what I read John Hoff's boasting that his blog was at least partially responsible for Moore's termination was the only comment used against him. How is this different from the local news making similar boasts on their commercials?

My point still stands. If John Hoff kept his secret identity as "Johnny Northside", then he wouldn't be in this legal predicament.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

NO.
Thats just as stupid as the censorship and everything else.

What we NEED is a world that isn't corrupt, stupid and run by greed. Then we won't need TOR at all.

Irrevelant anyway i guess. we won't have the tor solution because the goverments would never allow it. and we won't have the better world solution because people suck.

Damm. that's despressing.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Yvanhoe]

Solve the exit node, by not exiting the network ! You can use a Tor hiddent service, or use anonets, to provide a website to the persons connected to Tor (no access from the outside). The exit node is then not a bottleneck anymore.

This should be the normal way to connect to the net : anonymous client, anonymous server, encrypted transmission.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[sa1lnr]

I thought it was the government that creates laws?

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[TRRosen]

not a chance. there is no basis for appeal here. An appeal must be based on an error of law or of fact. The key element of this case is the jury determining Northsides intentions. That is a judgement call by the jury and can not be appealed.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[vivian]

America - land of the free. Hahahaha - what a joke. wake up people. Time to make a stand against this kind of crap.
The lawyers and corporations have the country stitched up, and each year more laws are passed which gradually change the government from one that represents the people to one that only represents special interest groups and those with the biggest pile of money. Don't let such a fine country slip into the mud.

Its almost as bad here (Aus) but thankfully we are still a step or two behind.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Injunctions, super or otherwise, are issued by courts, not the government.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[julesh]

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, you know.

In UK usage, "government" refers specifically to the prime minister and the ministers he appoints to specific roles.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The government didn't do this, it's a court. That is not a small distinction. I disagree with this super-injunctions business, and I gather that a review of this is currently underway, but even I can't blame Clegg and Cameron for this. Everything else, though.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Dan541]

Also anonymity removes credibility from the blogger. Anonymous blogging is not the way forward; protecting the right of free-speech is the correct way to go.

If someone does post bullshit. So what? they just risk their own reputation when they are exposed.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Charity starts at home. Stop buying iShnyThings, you itards...

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Qzukk]

that allowed it to "get to that point" are also allowing it to be appealed... I guess it would be inconvenient to your delusions to mention that.

Because you're paying for this? Oh no wait, the blogger is going to have to pay for it, or find someone like the ACLU to pay for it through donations, and it will probably take several more years and several times the cost that just paying to make it go away would cost.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Cinnamon Beige]

Yes, because we all have the right to instant gratification when it comes to the truth.

I'm mostly on the side of civil disobedience here, I just wish I got the feeling that the idea that there are sometimes going to be nasty consequences was not alien to those speaking the loudest for it. Just imagine what, say, what would be the consequences of leaking a law enforcement organization's list of moles and contacts. As it is, some of the diplomatic communications that got leaked may have rather destroyed the ability to grant the sorts of concessions being discussed in them--as long as it wasn't publicly known, it was possible to do so without losing face. (Think of it as like having to pay lip service to your boss & his unreasoning hate of The Competition, while working quietly with them to ensure that the systems are mutually compatible. If your boss finds out, it's not going to happen.)

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[bill_mcgonigle]

Irrevelant anyway i guess. we won't have the tor solution because the goverments would never allow it. and we won't have the better world solution because people suck.

Most people don't suck. Even if some percentage of them do, we had half a billion people killed by governments in the last century (wars and democide combined). So, the sucky people have to do worse than that to make these powerful and corrupt governments worthwhile.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? To destroy random people's lives willy-nilly?

I fully 100% support Wikileaks and the like, and yet to me it sounds like this blogger might have deserved this lawsuit *gasp*. He chose a normal person he didn't like (only barely able to be considered a public figure) and with the specific intent of getting him fired, dug up dirt on him and made it public. I wasn't on the jury, and there's not enough information available for me to know for sure, but seeing as a jury found him guilty, I'll assume it's pretty close to those circumstances.

What would you think if I hired a private detective to follow you around, dig into your past, and then publish everything he finds? It would all be true, however, it's destructive to you, destructive to society, and provides no benefits to society. It's "free speech" like harassment is free speech. In the case of public figures, governments, or corporations, the transparency usually greatly benefits society and is in fact necessary for society to continue functioning. On the other hand, if every person's private life was 100% open at all times, society would collapse on itself in a week.

If this blogger had done a report mortgage fraud and reported that this guy (amongst others) was somehow involved, he probably would've got a pass. But instead, he had the INTENT to destroy this guy, and intent is a pretty damn important concept in law.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[blair1q]

No. This is why Wikileaks is a bad thing.

If this doesn't happen to actual people, then nobody can fight the system and fix it. Government secrecy and chilling defensiveness just get worse and worse as those in power fight the release of anonymous information instead of being reformed to protect your right to release it.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[powerlord]

Maybe, but I see this as an example of why we need to find a way to rekindle the ideas of Freedom and Justice that seems to be withering away in this country.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Hognoxious]

In the UK judges aren't elected, so they are aboove the democratic process.

And given that the only way to dispute a court's decision involves going to another court - which can basically make the law up as it goes along - then I'd say they're above the law too.

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, but true. +1

Re:This is why we need sites like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

And this we do. Nothing.

that will teach him!

[neo8750]

The internet is no place for the truth! Serves him right for spreading that horrible stuff around.

Re:that will teach him!

[Anonymous Coward]

"You want the truth?"
"You can't handle the truth!"

I love that quote.

Re:that will teach him!

[hedwards]

No you don't. Liar.

Re:that will teach him!

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth lies to the eye of the beholder

truth

[ixidor]

i seem to remember from cyberlaw class that the truth was always a defense to a libel case. If, in fact he did tell the truth, and he lost this should be an interesting read.

Re:truth

[Elder Entropist]

It's not a libel case, it's a "tortious interference" case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Re:truth

[barrtender]

Yes, telling the truth is a 100% defense to a libel case. Too bad we don't have a libel case here.

Jane Kirtley, a U of M professor of media law and ethics, called the lawsuit an example of "trash torts," in which someone unable to sue for libel, which by definition involves falsity, reaches for another legal claim.

It doesn't mention what it was filed under, other than "lost wages and emotional damage", but the article says that it's not being filed under libel.

Re:truth

[ixidor]

ok he sued him for "tortious interference" . wikepedia: "Tortious interference, also known as Intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract)." so how exactly did he interfere with any such contract? and what contract? most states are right to work, so it not likely an employment contract. under typical examples on wikipedia: "Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away." the keyword there is fasle claims, but the underpinnings here are the truth. i r confused. is it 1984 already?

Re:truth

[MickyTheIdiot]

So if someone loses wages or feels bad because you told the truth you can get sued and actually lose.

For some reason that makes me feel worse than I thought he lost a libel case...

Re:truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the plaintiff, by perpetrating mortgage fraud, was the one that damaged his own business relationship with his employer.

The fact that it was someone else revealing the truth to the employer is besides the point. Clearly someone that partakes in mortgage fraud isn't a good candidate for the job he had. Or maybe he didn't disclose his criminal record to the employer when he should have...

If you truthfully point out the local school bus driver takes crystal meth and vodka binges before driving the kids to school, and he loses his job as a result, he can sue you for losing his job? That's just stupid.

Re:truth

[mug funky]

check out Australia's defamation laws. truth doesn't mean dick there - it's not a defense at all.

this case would be morally better if our defendant were also able to successfully sue the state for the same thing if our blogger had merely reported to the authorities.

i think our blogger could try to use public interest as a defense though - i'm not sure if bloggers are given the same graces that traditional journalists are. they should be considering half the news these days is just copypasta from Twitter.

Re:truth

[micheas]

The Plaintiff claimed that there were five false and slanderous statements on the blog and sued.

Four of those statements were made by people other than the blogger, and the judge dismissed the actions based on those four statements.

The jury found, for what ever reason, that the statement that the blogger made, and claims to be true, was unsupported by evidence, and made with malice for the goal of getting the Plaintiff fired.

I am in California, and unlikely to get a copy of the transcript, but from several hundred miles away, it looks like the jury disagreed with the bloggers statement about there being evidence.

Re:truth

[Anonymous Coward]

check out Australia's defamation laws.

Citation needed. No, seriously... I'd mod the parent +Informative it it would have had a relevant ref.

Re:truth

[zill]

Well... they're down under, so everything is the opposite over there. The truth is obviously something bad in Australia.

Re:truth

[mysidia]

So if someone loses wages or feels bad because you told the truth you can get sued and actually lose. For some reason that makes me feel worse than I thought he lost a libel case...

Hm.. perhaps it's time to start going around suing posters of "Linux Sucks" comments?

Those just make me feel bad... plus i'm sure I could find some people who lost money because fewer people tried Linux.

Shady retailers could also start using this avenue for RIAA-style lawsuits against anyone posting negative reviews.

Hell... eBay sellers can probably sue anyone leaving negative feedback. Since intent is well understood -- negative feedback is intended to reduce their sales by alerting every prospective seller that they had issues with that seller.

Re:truth

[talis9]

While what you was once true, that is no longer the case.

From the EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia) page on defamation (http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html):

On 25 October 2005, the Queensland Attorney General Linda Lavarch announced that a Bill (Defamation Bill 2005) to amend Queensland's defamation laws, in accord with proposed uniform national laws, had been introduced into Parliament and was expected to become effective from 1 January 2006. In a media release titled Queensland Moves To Adopt National Uniform Defamation Laws the Queensland Attorney General stated that key features of the legislation include:

        * "preventing corporations (other than non-for-profit organisations or small businesses) from suing for defamation, addressing current community concerns that large companies could stifle legitimate public debate by beginning defamation action;
        * establishing a defence of "truth" to replace the previous defence of "truth and public benefit";
        * reducing the time limit for bringing a defamation action from six years to one year (or three years if the court is satisfied an action could not have been brought within one year);
        * abolishing the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in civil defamation proceedings; and
        * limiting juries to determining whether a person has been defamed, leaving the awarding of damages to judges."

This was passed in to law in all Australian states and territories. So truth is a defense in Australia.

Re:truth

[Slashdot Parent]

So if someone loses wages or feels bad because you told the truth you can get sued and actually lose.

For some reason that makes me feel worse than I thought he lost a libel case...

We have freedom of speech in the US, but we don't always have freedom from the consequences of our speech, if that speech causes damage.

We also have freedom of expression in the US, but what if I like to express myself by punching people in the face? Well, that's not allowed, and I would be subject to civil and criminal liabilities for this "expression".

Change the legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it more difficult to sue.

Re:Change the legal system

[flaming error]

Why pick on the plaintiff? Aren't defendants often guilty?

The problem is not frivolous lawsuits, it's frivolous juries that come from a frivolous citizenry.

Re:Change the legal system

[aristotle-dude]

Why pick on the plaintiff? Aren't defendants often guilty?

The problem is not frivolous lawsuits, it's frivolous juries that come from a frivolous citizenry.

Why waste everyone's time on expensive frivolous lawsuits? There should be a preliminary hearing for a lawsuit where the case has to pass a sniff test before an actual trial can proceed. If the plaintiff cannot provide sufficient evidence in the hearing, no trial with fishing expeditions can commence.

Re:Change the legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pick on the plaintiff

Because it is better to let one hundred guilty men go free than to convict an innocent.

Re:Change the legal system

[flaming error]

"the case has to pass a sniff test" is fine by me.

But just "making things harder" usually unbalances the playing field, so those with substantial resources could play and the less fortunate could not.

Libel

[Lazareth]

In before "free speech being repressed!". Even if Northside had his facts straight, he should have gone to the police, not to the public. Sure, we may know now that the researcher was guilty, but what happened to due process?

An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.

Re:Libel

[unity100]

what happened to journalism ? was watergate confirmed ?

Re:Libel

[geek]

It's only libel if it is false and the person saying it knows that it is false. He has every right to say what he did, this is exactly why we have the 1st amendment. Whistleblowers like him are a good thing.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I need to wait to be legally confirmed as a troll before being modded down? What kind of standard is that? A judge has to look at something AND make a ruling before we're aloud to tell other people things?

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

The researcher wasn't caught by the blogger. The blogger just revealed his conflict of interest. The police wouldn't have appreciated their time being wasted. And libel is false by definition.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Is this a public or a private case? Was Watergate a public or a private case? Who can call themselves journalists and who can't? When are you able to throw around direct accusations of such weight, instead of going to the police, and expect not to be sued?

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was not somehow involved with the fraudulent mortgage, why would the police do? It is not as if many or most would actually care about this enough.

From the police perspective I can't see it being much more than stumbling into their office to tell them, "I heard a guy when I was at a bar that he was lying about someone!"

He really has 2 options here. 1. The best method to this is to find out who was the victim of the fraud and talk to them directly with the evidence on hand, and let them decide how to handle it. 2. Publish the information as a news type article, which this seems to be.

Re:Libel

[lostmongoose]

I dunno about you but, where I live, we don't have to run to the police to publish *fact and truth*. It's called journalism, get over it. It was verified fact and not an accusation, btw. RTFA.

Re:Libel

[superdave80]

...but what happened to due process?

Last I checked, the blogger didn't convict Moore of anything. He simply stated facts that he could back up with proof. Besides, part of the lawsuit was because Moore was fired. The blogger didn't force Moore's boss to fire him, so why was the blogger sued for this? Shouldn't Moore be suing his boss?

Re:Libel

[geek]

We the citizens make those decisions. Perhaps the USSR was more to your liking? I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article " the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment". Please read the article. No libel involved.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Ah. So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile. After all, you're quite sure. Nevermind the police. Oh! It turned out that you WERE right! Lucky! Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong... Nevermind that, you was right, nothing wrong with the process!

Fair process? What's that?

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

No, but he presented explicit accusations before he was convicted. About a case that was very much private. That's basically convicting him in public before checking with the authorities.

Re:Libel

[unity100]

ok. with your 'fair process' nixon would never be tried. or the tapes would never come out. or, the filth wouldnt get exposed before the elections.

Re:Libel

[shadowfaxcrx]

The guy worked for the University of Minnesota - a public school funded in part by tax payers. It is therefore absolutely a public case.

Who can call themselves journalists is irrelevant. The 1st amendment does not say "freedom of speech only if you are a journalist."

And whether it is a public or private case is and should be immaterial. If Northside told the truth, then he should be absolutely protected from retribution. Legal trickery should not trump the 1st amendment.

I assure you that if I were a blogger, and I found out that someone who I was for whatever reason covering was up to his ears in criminal activity, I would rightfully expect to be able to tell people about it without being held liable for it.

Put another way, what this case really says is "don't say anything negative about anyone, ever, whether it's true or not, because if they have to face any consequences for what they did, it will be your fault." That's a(nother) direct attack on the first amendment.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

"Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others."

Defamation? Where have I heard that before? Hmmm...Oh yes! "Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)".

"No libel involved" indeed.

Re:Libel

[quickOnTheUptake]

An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
If it is true it is true. And as long as it can be confirmed it isn't libel.
If you shoot someone in front of a crowd and there are multiple clear pictures of you doing it plus dozens of witnesses, do we have to wait for you to be found guilty before you are a murderer and can be called such?
Just because all big media outlets are extremely conservative about making accusations--so they don't have to deal with libel suits--doesn't mean that not being super-paranoid is libel.
Due process is about goverment doling out punishment; Not about the people calling a spade a spade.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Please see elsewhere in the thread regarding Watergate.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

wait..so if something isn't defined by law it can't be true? or if it was determined by legal process, then it is?? what about those innocents rotting in jail right now? you lawyer types are just as bad as the archetypal star wars nerd thinking that everything relates to star wars somehow.

Re:Libel

[Rollgunner]

The article very clearly says that the defendant was *not* sued for libel. "The truth is an absolute defense" in cases of libel, so the ex-teacher had no ground to stand on for a libel case. He chose a civil tort instead, which allows you to sue for pretty much anything you like, so long as you can get a judge and/or jury to agree.

Also, i'm not sure what the police would have done. It seems from the article that the ex-teacher had been involved in some capacity in a bad mortgage scandal, the results of which did not cause him to face any legal sanctions. However, any university wishing to appear credible is *not* going to have someone studying mortgage failures that was implicated in even a tangential way with an actual mortgage fraud. "Avoid even the illusion of impropriety."

What I'd want to know as a jurist was whether the ex-teacher disclosed that past incident to the university before he was hired. If he had, I'd be far more likely to find in his favor, because an individual caused him to be terminated for reasons that the university initially did not find objectionable, but he was "Tried in the public courts" as they say. If he had *not* disclosed, I'd likely find against him, as it seems that he was merely caught being dishonest.

Re:Libel

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The police involvement in Watergate was the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. The real question is would the follow up investigations and resulting impeachments happen if it wasn't for the efforts of Bob Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's reporting in the Washington Post?

While the Watergate scandal involved public figures, the DNC is a private organization tasked with coordinating the political agenda of the Democratic Party and raise funding for their elections, therefore it's not as clear cut as you think.

Contrast that today with the abundant use of contractors for consultants and university professors getting involved in public policy debates, I just don't see how we could consider using a "public versus private" litmus test for this story.

Re:Libel

[countertrolling]

So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile.

That's right. And the people who whould believe the accusation without checking are a bunch of dumbasses, pricks, and gossips. He should sue the people who fired him, not the guy talking about him.

Re:Libel

[micheas]

The lawsuit was about five other statements that were not supported by facts.

Four of them were not made by the blogger and hence those four statements were struck from the civil action.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

So lets say for a second that in this hypothetical case the person was wrong and the teacher was not a pedophile. The teacher should sue the people believing the liar, but not the liar? I can see how that makes sense,
  in Narnia.

Re:Libel

[unity100]

why.

Re:Libel

[quickOnTheUptake]

So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile.

If you have proof--like say, photos--, yes.

Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong.

Well, then you would be guilty of libel, and would probably end up regretting having jumped to conclusions without sufficient proof, because he would be in a position to sue you into a cardboard box while in the process of vindicating his name.
Look, nobody is saying that it's right to go around spreading our slightest suspicions as fact. We are just saying that a jury isn't the sole arbiter of truth, and that not everything is libel until a court has decided otherwise.

Re:Libel

[Culture20]

Pi is defined by no law except in Kentucky. Today is not Pi day. Pi day is 3/0, not 3/14.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Because I already addressed that strawman? It is not the same kind of case by a long shot.

Re:Libel

[mug funky]

this is tricky - news organizations do the same every day and are protected by the public interest.

perhaps if our blogger had gone to the police/IRS/whatever and if there was obvious inaction he THEN blogged, it could have been fine for him. or not.

but what journalist would ever sit on a story that's in the public interest (which it is, actually).

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point - the teacher *can't* vindicate himself.

The moment you accuse him of paedophilia he loses his job, the newspapers spray his name and the worst mugshot they can find all over the place, and even if he can *prove* his innocence in court (which isn't how it's supposed to work in the first place!) his name will forever be tainted. The newspapers would bury the aquittal or any erratas somewhere on page six in fine print, and people would treat him as if he was guilty anyway.

There are certain crimes that society punishes people for on mere suspicion; paedophilia is number one on the list.

If you have suspicions (or evidence), take them to the fucking police so they can do the job properly. Don't be a bell-end and turn it into a (circus) trial by media.

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

I disagree. Yes, you can make a story out of "certain person A" and publish what information you have, in redacted form. When it then turns out that you're actually right, no problem. When it turns out you're wrong, you can safely shut up or even better make a story out of how you were wrong.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good reason to appeal the ruling. Also it was a civil case which means 'lets just vote the fucker guilty and get out of here'. Also it sounds like the Judge narrowed it down pretty much too. So (IANAL) he probably has a good case on appeal.

Re:Libel

[countertrolling]

The teacher should sue the people believing the liar, but not the liar?

Yep, if they act against him, of course. If you wish to discuss taking responsibility for your actions, first you look in the mirror. If you can't stop to think before you act, then the problem is you, and nobody else, and your response mechanism is of out of kilter and needs adjustment. The believers are the problem, exactly the same way that Rush Limbaugh's listeners are much more threatening than he is. That's the funny thing about you people. You're all obsessed with the leader, never once considering the converse element, the followers. Those who perform the dirty deed. If they were robots, you would be correct...

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Sure, if the police or whatever relevant authority failed to do their job, then it would essentially be whistleblowing and I would be fine with that.

Re:Libel

[Obfuscant]

However, any university wishing to appear credible is *not* going to have someone studying mortgage failures that was implicated in even a tangential way with an actual mortgage fraud. "Avoid even the illusion of impropriety."

And yet, a lot of people who read this blog, being of a technical bent, will say that the best employment for a black hat is as a white hat because he knows the subject pretty well. Why would this be any different? And since there were no legal sanctions, exactly what legal grounds does the Uni have for firing him? Something to do with "innocent until proven guilty".

Is implication supposed to be good enough for a government to treat someone like they are guilty now?

Re:Libel

[interkin3tic]

Even if Northside had his facts straight, he should have gone to the police, not to the public.

If you're accusing someone of a crime like mortgage fraud, and it's true (as it was in this case) then I'd say no, people who aren't in law enforcement have no moral obligation to go to the police first. I don't know about legally, but morally, no, if you know someone is guilty, fuck them. Broadcast it however you like, before or after alerting the police. If you're not sure, then yeah, alert the police first maybe.

In this case, the guy was fired the day after it was published. Had the police started an investigation, would they have been able to just tell his employers before he was proven guilty in a court that he was guilty?

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

In a completely naive and idealistic sense, I actually agree with you completely. However, this is reality and the accuser is partly responsible for the actions of the believers, because in essence the accuser fully expects and counts on that reaction. Yes, it is the believers' fault for believing him, but that does not absolve the liar. Especially if the lie is a good one, rhetorically.

Re:Libel

[sabt-pestnu]

The first impression out there is going to stick more than any authoritative refutation.

However, the scenario the GP posits is that the accusation is true. The accused has little recourse to "suing for justifiable discharge".

This was not a libel trial since in the US, the truth is a defense. But it was a defamation one. Which puzzles me (IANAL), as libel is a form of defamation. So on what basis can a jury possibly award damages? (Perhaps one of you lawyer types out there can answer that.)

Re:Libel

[Lazareth]

Uh, yes, you have a moral obligation to let the police handle legal matters and especially to report it to them.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's accusing him in public before checking with the authorities. If that should be grounds for legal action, then OJ Simpson could have sued most of the world in 1995.

Re:Libel

[Obfuscant]

... but he was "Tried in the public courts" as they say.

I think the actual saying is "tried in the court of public opinion". The courts we have around here are all "public courts", at least the legal ones. The tennis courts are private, however...

Re:Libel

[quickOnTheUptake]

The teacher can't vindicate himself if someone fabricates an account, i.e., if a kid accuses the teacher of having molested him.
If someone else jumps to the conclusion that he is a paedophile and starts accusing him publicly (maybe he has a high voice and seems to spend an awful lot of time with some of his students outside of class), then he absolutely can vindicate his name, just by suing the person making the statements and waiting for the defendant to come up empty-handed trying to substantiate the claim.
Admittedly sometimes the evidence appears conclusive and the public holds its own opinion, as often happens when people are charged and win in court on technicalities (e.g., the conclusive evidence was illegally obtained and so the judge wouldn't let it be shown to the jury).
But that is an entirely different scenario.
But all of this consideration is off-topic: I'm not defending the person who makes baseless or precipitous claims. I'm defending the person who makes well-founded claims that he can corroborate.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant that just because a bunch of lawyers say something is so because another group of lawyers wrote it down and voted on it, doesnt make whatever it is true or even just. ther'es too much of that kind of blinkered justice happening in so-called free countries these days.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... no... he presented facts. Not accusations.

And since when can someone only blog about issues that have been through court and resulted in a conviction?

Re:Libel

[joocemann]

If you call the police about an event involving what is a CIVIL matter, they will tell you to go file a civil suit and will go about their day. CRIMINAL matters are what the police are for. You're posting like you know what you're talking about, but you clearly don't.

Re:Libel

[geminidomino]

I'll agree with that when the police have a moral obligation to handle said legal matters universally instead of selectively. Evidently, this is not currently the case.

Re:Libel

[unity100]

and pray explain us how will your 'due process' case would work in case of watergate.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no right to a positive public image, and the "authorities" have no authority to stop someone from publishing damaging but true information. And there is no responsibility to check with anyone before publication.

And it wasn't "very much private" once it was published, was it?

The accused has a right to a fair trial, which can include a change of venue if everyone in the jury pool has seen the accusations. But a negative public image isn't protected, while the right to a free press most certainly is.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

he should have gone to the police, not to the public.

Says who?

An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.

Utter bullshit. Pathetic.

Re:Libel

[countertrolling]

Well yeah, god did throw the snake out of eden also.

I don't honestly expect to achieve perfection, but we should at least point towards it. Authority is exactly the opposite. And authority based on hearsay, well, we're looking down its rifle barrel. The reactions I see is so panicky and cowardly.. It's <pathetic>. This case is as frivolous as it gets.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different than the investigative reporter on your local evening news? Half of their point is to _instigate_ criminal investigation, and they always get bonus points for breaking the story before the police.

Re:Libel

[h4rr4r]

Sure, so long as you are right. If you are wrong let him sue you for slander.

Re:Libel

[SETIGuy]

Even if Northside had his facts straight, he should have gone to the police, not to the public. Sure, we may know now that the researcher was guilty, but what happened to due process?

You misunderstand... From what I have been able to observe for the past couple years, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about mortgage fraud. I assume he was fired for having an unreported conflict of interest in his research.

Re:Libel

[lee1]

Don't forget the highest court in the land.

Re:Libel

[Stalky]

"Pi is defined by no law except in Kentucky."

s/Kentucky/Indiana/

(And it only made it through one house of the state legislature there.)

Re:Libel

[countertrolling]

The first impression out there is going to stick more than any authoritative refutation.

Exactly.. So why aren't we applying the corrective measures where they are most needed?

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

This was a civil case not a criminal case. It was a public case (jury trial) not a private case (arbitration, etc). Anyone can call themselves a journalist, but not all claims will be honored in court. That determination seems to be flexible in many ways.

The issue in this case (as best as I can make out) was not journalism and free speech, but "tortious interference" which may have involved the fact that the blogger *intended* to get the guy fired. Journalists are supposed to be neutral - not trying to create an outcome. I still think this verdict smells funny, but the blogger wrote a second article (apparently) that took partial credit for getting the guy fired, and probably that's where his trouble began.

I think pro journalists generally know to avoid such public statements, for this very reason..

Re:Libel

[mldi]

Yes, that's all fine and dandy until a dirty cop is paid off to illegally search and trash his place and/or arrest the poor guy. Not that that'd necessarily happen, but don't doubt that it could and does.

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

If you're a neutral journalist (esp a professional one) who reports (breaks news) on a pedophile as a public interest story, you're very likely to be protected by first amendment rights. But if you report the story with the intent to get the teacher fired, that may run you into the same trouble this blogger got into. How to avoid showing your intent? Keep your story neutral and fact-focused. After your story runs, then journalists would enjoy first amendment rights to write an op-ed on the story stating that "in cases like these, people should be fired" (or you might even demand this specific person gets fired, though that's more rare in op-eds).

See how it works? Imperfect, but designed to have balances for journalistic neutrality and opinion.

We don't in the US have a blanket protection to report anything, but we also have a broad protection on reporters so long as they are just reporting and not trying to influence affairs (though of course many journalists know that's exactly what they're doing when they write certain stories -- but they don't *say that* in their articles).

In this case, I gather, the blogger said in a subsequent blog post that he took credit for getting the guy fired. I still think this verdict stinks, but I'd guess that subsequent public statement got the blogger into more hot water.

Re:Libel

[nedlohs]

That's right, a moral obligation to report it to them.

I hope you've reported everyone you've seen smoke a joint to the police. And everyone you know has downloaded music or video on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And if someone didn't report that amazon purchase they made to the state so they could pay "use tax" make sure to report them to.

It's you moral obligation!

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

This was, as best as I can tell, neither a defamation nor a libel case. This was a claim of tortious interference, which means the defendant intentionally interfered with contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case a university who employed the plaintiff).

Generally speaking, reporting news such as this is protected (maybe more so for pro journalists than bloggers). As I understand it the plaintiff had to show that the blogger intended to get him fired when he wrote the article breaking this news. The blogger apparently (foolishly) wrote a second blog article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired. This is probably what got him into hot water or at least into more of it.

Still, my opinion is that first amendment should protect this particular blogger for this particular story (knowing only sketchy details, this is an uninformed opinion).

Re:Libel

[mldi]

Wow, yes, compare accusations against a powerful man that is given the benefit of the doubt by a large portion of the public whose personal life isn't barely affected by such accusations, even if true TO tossing around dirty rumors against a teacher whose weight in words alone would destroy his personal and professional life and probably cause him to move out of town even if proven innocent with multiple alibis, eyewitnesses, and mountains of evidence.

Should we put the same weight behind accusations of rape and cheating on one's taxes? I hardly think so.

Wait, if you were right, should we sue the person who spread the word about the pedo?

Re:Libel

[mldi]

Well, hell, if I can sue somebody for enough cash to pay for my defense trial for my own crime in question.... wait, it shouldn't work like that?

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

Agree with all your points, except that the law appears in many places in the US to say "If you publish facts with the intent to disrupt a contract between two other people or orgs, you may not have all the first amendment protections you would otherwise expect." (aka tortious interference)

So neutral journalists are more protected than people publishing information with an agenda. Proving that someone has an agenda is hard. In this case, the blogger apparently wrote a follow up article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired, which may be where his legal troubles actually began.

Still, I agree with you, this case should probably have first amendment protections trumping the tortious interference claim, and maybe that's what will happen on appeal.

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

Good point! You're welcome to get out in front of the legal determination, but if the ruling goes the other way, you're hung out to dry. Which is why big media never does it.

I wonder if there are exceptions for extremely long running civil trials? For example, calling Bill Gates a monopolist before the gov't won it's case? It might be years before it's determined one way or the other? What if the person you *potentially* libeled sues you before the first case runs its course? Hmm. I guess you're left with only the evidence you can muster that you're not guilty of libel, and not able to use the legal ruling itself which is more iron clad in terms of a defense. So your example of tons of video and public eye witness statements, which ought to be a good enough shield.

I guess the real issue with the Bill Gates example is "law of most lawyers" where it almost doesn't matter whether something's legal if the other guy has many, many more lawyers.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it turned out that you were wrong? Enjoy paying the damages from the libel suit. Seriously, truth is a perfectly reasonable defense in a libel suit. I'd have much more sympathy if the researcher had sued his university for termination without just cause. Suspension with pay while it was investigated might have been reasonable the next day but certainly not being fired that rapidly.

Re:Libel

[shadowfaxcrx]

You make good points, but I'll counter with this:

I can take credit for things that I did not necessarily intend to happen. Not that I know jack about this particular blogger, but if he's like most gotcha-bloggers, he set out to write something scathing about someone. He most likely did not sit down to the keyboard thinking "Awright! This'll get the SOB fired!" And proving that he did would be pretty much impossible unless he comes straight out and admits it.

Also, bearing in mind that I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the contract disruption laws you mention should also only apply when the intent is malicious and the facts are untrue. If I know that someone is a scammer, and I publicize that information in order to stop more people from being scammed, I should not be punished for it.

Otherwise, we're all risking financial ruin every time we tell someone not to send money to that Nigerian prince. . .

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

had I been wrong, there would be consequences for me also, therefore it is in my best interest to be sure that I am correct before stating it in public.

what about accusations that will never be "legally confirmed" because they are not crimes?

say I saw a politician having lunch with a group of known underground criminals, should I not be allowed to blog about this?

Re:Libel

[adolf]

I take offense to your implied reference of Slashdot being a blog, even though it predates the common use of the term and though it certainly meets every modern standard of it.

I shall sue you for your indiscretion in civil court.

Let us allow the jury decide who is right.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Is implication supposed to be good enough for a government to treat someone like they are guilty now?

No, but a guilty verdict from a jury trial is, and that's what was returned in this case.

He was not being prosecuted by the government, he was sued by a private citizen.

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

If you want to see a great (re-enacted) example of "tortious interference" and how it can be used to stifle free speech, watch the Insider by Michael Mann. In fact I found it on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ShktXHPII

This issue was apparently at play in the "real" story behind the movie too - from what I understand.

Journalists are supposed to be neutral which is a big defense against tortious interference and other similar claims. Gotcha bloggers and journalistic muckrakers are at bigger risk if they display not just "gotcha" intentions, but intentions to disrupt or cause harm to the other party. They also, of course, have to print the truth or be at risk of slander or libel, but as Gershon says in the clip above "the greater the truth, the greater the damages" which is a classic example of how the legal system can turn everything upside down..

Re:Libel

[gfreeman]

About a case that was very much private.

What case was very much private? Aren't courts open to the public? TFA says it was a "high-profile fraudulent mortgage".

Re:Libel

[Slashdot Parent]

In the US, we enjoy freedom of speech. We can basically publish whatever we want, without any prior restraint. That does not, however, absolve us of the damages our speech and actions might cause.

If you commit a tort against someone, you get to make that person whole. In this case, the blogger tried the get the plaintiff fired and succeeded. To use a car analogy, consider if I tried to run you over with my car and succeeded. That's a tort, and I'd be liable for damages.

Re:Libel

[Slashdot Parent]

It's one thing to publish a story. It's another to try to get someone fired.

If blogger would have just published the facts and not tried to get plaintiff fired, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re:Libel

[shadowfaxcrx]

The analogy breaks down because trying to run someone over with a car is not protected by the constitution.

Further, this article did not say that he *tried* to get the plaintiff fired, so unless you're aware of something that wasn't stated in the article, I'm not sure how you can say that.

Now, I do understand that laws can be screwed up, but the argument that I seem to be seeing here is that if I catch my coworker with child pornography on his computer and I tell someone about it, he can sue me if he loses his job over it.

Let's also not forget that under that interpretation of the law, this blogger (assuming the article is correct in asserting that he actually had evidence of the plaintiff's wrongdoing) is between a rock and a hard place. If he tells someone about it, he gets financially wiped out in a civil suit. If he hides the information, he's an accessory to the crime.

If indeed that is how the law is structured, then it is a serious flaw that must be addressed.

Re:Libel

[Slashdot Parent]

Further, this article did not say that he *tried* to get the plaintiff fired, so unless you're aware of something that wasn't stated in the article, I'm not sure how you can say that.

That's what the jury would have had to have found to get a verdict of tortious interference. According to his blog post, he first tried to submit the information to the U of M directly so they might fire him. And when that didn't work, he went public with the information, which both he and the U claim '"blew open" the issue of Moore's hiring and forced the hand of U of M decision-makers'. Apparently, the jury felt that this was more of an act of trying to get the guy fired, and less an act of informing the public (i.e. journalism).

Now, I do understand that laws can be screwed up, but the argument that I seem to be seeing here is that if I catch my coworker with child pornography on his computer and I tell someone about it, he can sue me if he loses his job over it.

Only if it can be shown that you were reporting the child pornography mainly to get your coworker fired, as opposed to reporting it because it's wrong and illegal.

Re:Libel

[Hognoxious]

he absolutely can vindicate his name, just by suing the person making the statements and waiting for the defendant to come up empty-handed trying to substantiate the claim.

That's how the UK[1]'s "draconian" libel laws work, but it's often said here that in the US it works the other way round, i.e. the plaintiff must prove the statements are false. Nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer as to how it's even possible to prove a negative like that.

[1] Strictly speaking I mean England and Wales. No doubt it's different in Scotland & NI.

Re:Libel

[Hognoxious]

How can you neutrally report facts which are intrinsically harmful to someone?

Let's say I discover a doctor working in a hospital. I know for a fact he's been disqualified, because he killed my brother when he misprescribed something while drunk. I bring it to the attention of management, and I include evidence - court papers, news clippings. No response. So I go to the newspapers and it's all over the front pages. Then he gets fired.

Was I interfering with his employment? Yes. Was my intent to get him fired? Well even if I didn't have revenge as a motive, it's a pretty forseeable consequence of denouncing him, so the answer must also be yes.

But the basic reason why his employment is at risk is down to his actions, not my reporting of them; logically if he hadn't done it, there'd be nothing for me to report.

I don't see what's morally wrong with my actions, so why should I be punished? I just don't see the relevance of intent at all. Either facts are facts or they aren't.

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

Here's my best understanding: You are not legally accountable simply for foreseeable consequences of your reporting, in cases of journalism freedom. You may be legally accountable for things you intend to do or happen as a result your reporting. This is why journalists are supposed to be neutral reporters, not agitators. They can be aware that their reporting has consequences, but if their intent is to cause a problem such as tortious interference (disrupting a contract between two other people) then they could have legal troubles.

In your case, the issue would be tricky b/c you're taking action on behalf of a family member. You wouldn't have journalistic protections most likely since you're not a neutral by-stander. But you would have other protections being an involved party in the issue. So bringing to the attention of management the faults of a doctor who killed your brother would almost never be tortious interference, as best as I understand the law.

And to your last point, intent can matter greatly in the law. There is a concept called "guilty mind" that does play in some crimes. For a classic law school example: if you walk into room and see your enemy sleeping on a couch, and you take the opportunity to shoot and kill him. It turns out that he had died in his sleep hours before, so really you just shot a corpse. If the prosecution can prove you intended to kill the man, you could still be convicted of attempted murder (instead of just some misdemeanor offense of shooting a corpse unlawfully).

Proving intent is very hard in most cases, so it doesn't come up often. But in first degree murder trials, as far as I'm aware, the *only* way you can get a conviction is to prove premeditated intent. So without premeditated intent, you are not guilty of first degree murder, ever.

In this case, the blogger took partial credit for getting the guy fired in a subsequent blog article. This probably helped establish his intent for the writing the original story in the minds of the jury..

All that said, I still want to say that I think this particular verdict is wrong and will hopefully be overturned on appeal.

Re:Libel

[Obfuscant]

I take offense at your threat to sue, and am discussing a countersuit with my attorney right now. I clean up well and juries like me. I will sue you in Texas and ask for millions in damages. You will lose. Cut your losses now and just send me a $10 note and we'll call it good.

Re:Libel

[Hognoxious]

They can be aware that their reporting has consequences, but if their intent is to cause a problem such as tortious interference (disrupting a contract between two other people) then they could have legal troubles.

If a person is in a position of responsibilty/authority that they aren't suited for, then publicising that fact is likely to get them removed, whatever the intent. I ask again, how can you neutrally report such a fact - "So-and-so is working as a doctor despite being struck off - but he has a lovely singing voice"?

If the prosecution can prove you intended to kill the man

Like you said, if they can prove. Assume I fatally shot someone who was still alive, but I claim I only intended to hurt him[1]. Without a time machine and a mindreader you can't prove anything, you can only infer. One thing I'm sure the prosecution would state is that it's a likely outcome that shooting someone will kill them, and anyone who can ties his own shoelaces ought to have known that.

If I really didn't want to kill him, I could have refrained from pulling the trigger. Likewise, if I really didn't want to lose him his job, I could have kept quiet. It's exactly the same - so we're back to foreseeable consequences.

[1] Under UK law that could still be murder, but let's leave that aside for now.

Re:Libel

[adolf]

Dir sir,

Touche'.

Go fuck yourself. :)

Re:Libel

[Unequivocal]

You're talking about law and morality the way you want it to work (fairness). I'm trying to tell you how it actually does work.

First Amendment

[Jessified]

This ruling is unlikely to survive a single appeal. Can you imagine the impact on journalism? Report the news, get slammed with a [successful] defamation suit?

I have to wonder what sort of judge feels that this ruling follows case law and current legislation.

Re:First Amendment

[Zugok]

Truth is a defence against defamation tort, however truth might be the very thing that a plaintiff wants to protect from the tort of a breach of privacy. Maybe the real question is whether the fact a fraudulent (thus criminal) activities can be protected by the privacy torts in civil cases.

Re:First Amendment

[micheas]

The jury found that the statement was unfounded by facts, despite the claims of the blogger to have proof.

The case was fairly good in that the four statements said by other people were struck from the lawsuit, and the blogger was not held accountable for the comments made by others on his blog.

Did the bloggers lawyer fail to present evidence to support the bloggers claim that the statement was based on facts? yes

Is it possible that the blogger hired an incompetent idiot to represent him? yes

Is the moral of this that if you are sued you need to find competent legal help? yes

Re:First Amendment

[RewriteQuran]

"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

If something like this holds, then shouldn't the defendant have the grounds to be able to counter-sue on violation of his first amendment rights in civil court? Given the facts in this case, you'd think the jury would side with him and render the award of this current case fairly moot. (It would be really funny if he manages to get a bigger award in a counter-suit case.)

IANAL, but some of this shit that actually makes it into court is just plain ridiculous.

Go MN court system!

[DWMorse]

Hennepin and Dakota county courtrooms are a freaking mess. I'm so proud of our Minnesota "justice." I'm glad I live a couple counties south. Far enough to not personally be afflicted, but close enough to hear the horror stories.

Re:Go MN court system!

[Saxophonist]

It depends on the court, but Hennepin County at least is a little messed up. I live in Dakota County but have had no contact with its court system. I wish for the sake of the defendant in the present case that he'd been able to keep the original judge in the case, John Q. McShane. I've appeared before him in a civil case where I was pro se, and while I do not completely agree with all his rulings in the case, I can say he seemed like a good, fair, and predictable judge to me. I don't think he would have let some of this nonsense go on. I know he had no problem putting opposing counsel in his place when he started making stupid arguments.

Conciliation court in Hennepin County, on the other hand, is a completely unaccountable kangaroo court, but that has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

Re:1st

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd tell you that it wasn't, but I don't want to be sued.

I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sycraft-fu]

"Does not compute!"

How does this have anything to do with the government clamping down on free speech? This is a god who made a claim about a researcher. The researcher then sued him in civil court where a jury, you know as in regular people, found him liable. Now I'm not saying they made the right decision, but this is not the government trying to shut this guy up, it is another guy trying to shut him up and a jury agreeing. Like it or not that is actually our system working.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Omnifarious]

The one guy would have no power to do that to the other guy if the power of government didn't back the first guy up. This is a case of government interference, even if it's a civil matter.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read the summary and the entire page, no one said anything about "free speech" until you. (Except for another prick down further on the page doing the same, "inB4Da fr33 sp3ch assholes" routine you've got going on. Good job a hole.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[MoonBuggy]

The government makes the law, both civil and criminal. Civil law often favours the wealthy, powerful party, and it is arguably the case that the reason for this skew is the influence of rich and powerful lobbyists steering the government towards protecting their interests at the expense of the less wealthy majority of the population.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[countertrolling]

Like it or not that is actually our system working.

You're right. That's why we must rip its heart out. This is absolute insanity.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[antifoidulus]

This is a god who made a claim about a researcher.

Can you even sue Zeus? Under whose jurisdiction does he fall?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[s73v3r]

Citation on the government actually backing him up? And I'm going to need more than "The government provided a court system for him to sue in."

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Cockatrice_hunter]

Even if the law was unfair and biased towards the wealthy, powerful party (it's not really, merely being misused here), it still fell to the jurors to let the fine pass. In this case perhaps it's not the government's fault (except perhaps in the poor eduction of the general populace as represented by the jurors) but the jurors'.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

How does this have anything to do with the government clamping down on free speech?

Because the truth used to be a defense against libel. However, with the swing to the far right (not a party swing, but the whole country, including both parties are swinging that way for some topics), freedom of speech is being trampled. There are already states where true statements about some protected industry is illegal if the statement is negative. Now you can't say anything to get someone fired, even if true.

this is not the government trying to shut this guy up,

It is the government shutting him up. The government is enforcing the finding made in the government court. They are the enforcement arm for this.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't sue God, but apparently he can sue you. He just has Santa Claus serve you, I guess. As long as he isn't the judge you at least have a chance.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[ScrewMaster]

Like it or not that is actually our system working.

Sounds more like the sound of our system malfunctioning. Hopefully the appeals court will have more on the ball.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

Juries are typically told that they MUST decide only on the facts, not on the law or on the fairness of the punishment. Last (and only) time I was in voir dire we were asked to swear that we would do so. I was excused when I said that I could not conscionably do that. The judge seemed genuinely surprised that I was able to articulate my objection.

So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.

Too bad the jury is sworn not to say "but that's not the defendant's problem, the plaintiff shouldn't have gotten involved in fraud". It all comes down to the judge's instructions to the jury. The citizens who think for themselves and make their own moral choices rather than simply obey are weeded out before the trial even starts.

So I wouldn't read too much into a jury verdict these days.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Moryath]

where a jury, you know as in regular people,

There's your first mistake.

They've opened up the jury pool to the point where "jury" equates to "twelve fucking retards who can barely velcro their own shoes."

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Alex Belits]

And who didn't throw lawsuits like this out of court? Letting 12 retards decide what to do with a person after listening to hours or days of screaming from lawyers should be the last resort, not the first choice.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mysidia]

Because the truth used to be a defense against libel. However, with the swing to the far right (not a party swing, but the whole country, including both parties are swinging that way for some topics), freedom of speech is being trampled. There are already states where true statements about some protected industry is illegal if the statement is negative. Now you can't say anything to get someone fired, even if true.

What's interesting here is the suit is not a libel suit. The suit was prosecuted on the basis of he wrote that maliciously for the purpose of getting the plaintiff fired; so libel or defamation is not a claim made in the suit.

The plaintiff could not sue for defamation or libel, if he tried, he would have failed, due to the truth of the information. The article mentioned

Jane Kirtley, a U of M professor of media law and ethics, called the lawsuit an example of "trash torts," in which someone unable to sue for libel, which by definition involves falsity, reaches for another legal claim. She predicted the verdict will be overturned.

The verdict also surprised U of M law professor William McGeveran, but he wasn't so certain that it will be easily overturned. Appeals courts tend to give a lot of credence to jury verdicts, he said.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Moryath]

Read the judge's ridiculous "decisions" regarding what she would and wouldn't allow into the courtroom. And the Jury Instructions she wrote.

Then see if you can call her a "respected jurist" without breaking into a snigger.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[MrQuacker]

Remember than next time you get called up for jury duty and try to weasel your way out.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[ScrewMaster]

This is a god who made a claim about a researcher. Can you even sue Zeus? Under whose jurisdiction does he fall?

You can only sue Zeus if he says it's okay. Lesser gods are more accountable.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Moryath]

I wish I could get called more often.

As it stands, let them know you actually have a college degree and the lawyers are instantly trying to get rid of you. The goal of the lawyers is to get the most gullible, brainless retards they can on the jury pool. Anyone with actual capacity to understand the facts of the case is someone they don't want on the jury because those are the people who will be able to see through their misdirection and who will question what they are leaving out.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mdw2]

He'll probably be able to get out of jury duty without much trouble.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[postbigbang]

Mod parent up. You can say anything you want if it's true, but there might be consequences, and this is what the litigation is about. It's likely to be overturned on appeal, as cited.

The plaintiff ought to be countersued for attorney's fees for bringing the litigation to court. On the surface, it looks like there was injury. But the jury should have scratched the surface-- and the defendent's counsel ought to have been able to convince the jury that there should be no consequences. He/She did a bad job, unless it really was a dozen dullards.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Omnifarious]

And the laws that allowed the suit to proceed.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[westlake]

Letting 12 retards decide what to do with a person after listening to hours or days of screaming from lawyers should be the last resort, not the first choice

Have you ever stepped foot inside a courtroom? The jurors aren't retards and the judge won't tolerate any theatrics from counsel.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Unequivocal]

Seven jurors in this case, not twelve. Also, since this was a civil case (though the article didn't mention it that I noticed) I don't think you always need a unanimous verdict from a civil jury. It's possible only 4 of the 7 voted for the plaintiff.. Not sure what the jury voting percentage rules are for the state in question.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[im_thatoneguy]

Speaking of the right. If this can get you sued for getting some fired for the truth... does that mean Fox News and all of the pundits out to fire every Obama appointee are liable. Often those firings aren't even based on truth.

And O'Keefe I imagine doubly vulnerable.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[rsilvergun]

You're right about the judge, but what the heck makes you think jurors aren't retards? I remember a woman on a jury saying, in the same sentence, that we can't allow our feelings to sway our judgment so we should band together to get this guy off the streets.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are out of reach of US courts, I think you shoulda posted that comment on Her Highness anonymously.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[dissy]

So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.,/quote>

As for the bold question, I would say the answer is no. (3rd one too as a result)

It was not the blogger pointing out this persons fraud that got the person fired.
It was the person committing fraud that got the person fired.

Thus it was the person committing fraud who is responsible for losing their job, and thus their lost income.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Garridan]

It's easy to sue Zeus. I hear he never pays up, even when you win. I mean, what are you going to do, send collections after him? If they even find his contact info, he'll just throw lightning at them, or damn them to some inventive eternal punishment in hades.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Unequivocal]

Hang on - juries don't just decide facts. They are *instructed in the law* by the judge, and are told to follow it. In their deliberations, they are legally obliged to follow this law and decide the facts. (Aside: It's quite illegal in jurisdictions I'm familiar with for a juror in the jury room to say and then follow through by voting on a statement like "I don't care what the law says, I'm not convicting this guy even if he is guilty" while it is perfectly legal for the same juror to keep his trap shut and just vote "not guilty.")

In this case the claim against the blogger was tortious interference, which roughly means proving not only are the facts as you presented them, but proving the blogger had intent to interfere with a contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case an employment agreement with a university). From the limited info in the article, the plaintiff may have gotten over that hurdle, at least partially, by showing that the blogger himself subsequent to the original blog took *partial* credit on a second blog article for getting the guy fired. This could help show intent to interfere with the employment contact. So, while it might be unambiguous free speech to publish or point out public information with no intent to cause harm, if the blogger is shown to have done so because he intended to screw up a legal contract, that may be a different issue.

Regardless of the above legal issues, in my opinion, first amendment protections in a case like this should override a tortious interference claim, but apparently this (I'm sure legally astute) jury of *seven* went the other way. The perils of a jury trial -- I wonder why the defendant didn't ask for a bench trial in this case..

If you want to see a classic example of tortious interference, watch the movie The Insider by Michael Mann. It shows (at least cinematically) how tortious interference claims can be used to stifle first amendment rights even against "big media" companies who have real lawyers.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[dissy]

Whoops, i screwed those tags up something good.

I should probably sue my keyboard manufacturer for implying I can't type, since the fact I can't type doesn't matter ;P

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mldi]

This is a god who made a claim about a researcher. Can you even sue Zeus? Under whose jurisdiction does he fall?

Apparently not. When Ernie Chambers of Nebraska tried to sue God, the judge threw it out because God wasn't served a legal notice. But in all fairness, the claim was that the lawsuit was filed to give light to frivolous lawsuits.... AND we come full circle!

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember some guys that tried to sue Gozer the Gozerian once. She was really big in Sumeria. It didn't go that well for them at first; it seems a giant sailor tried to get them. Finally, in a last-ditch effort, they cross-posted their appeal or something and ended up winning without causing complete protonic reversal. Yeah, suing gods isn't so smart.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the correct phrase for this is 'political correctness'.

In the scenario of the blogger, though he was truthfully correct he was politically incorrect. Therefore, being politically incorrect, he gets his arse pounded with a $60,000 no refunds fine.

This is the virtues of freedom, justice, and righteousness all going down the toilet.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth still is a defense to libel. The problem is that this case was not brought under a libel action, but instead under "Emotional Distress."

And the government is not shutting him up from what I can tell. No where in the article was there a mention of an injunction. Instead so far he is merely being told he has to pay for that which he already said. So even if you consider a court order following a decision by a group of our peers to be the government acting, it is not shutting him up.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[ifiwereasculptor]

If you go against a TV network, suddenly all the press worldwide starts badmouthing you for being against free speech. Even if said TV network is a fear-mongering slanderous bastard. I've read a funny article, once, that said Obama was censoring the press. What actually happened was a White House spokesperson had said something about some networks being slanderous and that opinions are different than lies. I'm no fan of Obama, by any means, but if you watch even a tiny bit Glenn Beck's show, you can't really help but think that some reprisal would be par for the course. Still it's not done. For a more blatant example, see Chavez and the 2002 coup d'état. Pretty much all networks aided the failed coup and, if memory serves, only one has been shut down, and about six years later. If you're the government, it's very hard to mess with a class of people who happen to have a lot of money and arguably the only/most effective mean of communication to the people whose support you depend on.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Volante3192]

Yes, the jurors are retards, and lawyers make sure of it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-03-09-column09_ST1_N.htm

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[nomadic]

But the jury should have scratched the surface-- and the defendent's counsel ought to have been able to convince the jury that there should be no consequences. He/She did a bad job, unless it really was a dozen dullards.

Why do you assume they didn't? They're the ones who were in court for the entire proceedings listening to the evidence and being instructed as to the law.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mywhitewolf]

Instead so far he is merely being told he has to pay for that which he already said. So even if you consider a court order following a decision by a group of our peers to be the government acting, it is not shutting him up.

if you get a $60,000 fine for informing people of a potential conflict of interest for a research case, then yeah, I'd say doesn't matter how the lawyers or PR word it, its still shutting him up. also, wouldn't it be appropriate for someone who was convicted of mortgage fraud being part of a research team in the same way hackers(or crackers if you want to get your nerdy panties in a twist) make good security consultants?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[nomadic]

That's counterintuitive. If one side wants the most gullible jurors because they have a weak case, then it stands to reason the other side likely wants the sharpest jurors they can get.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mywhitewolf]

2 out of 3 in a civil case is apparently enough for a conviction. if this guy was a pedophile that lost his job at school because someone informed the public of his past crimes, there is no difference in having the pedophile sue for damages in the same way? the only ambiguous information in the summery is "had been involved in a fraudulent mortgage himself;" involved means he could have just been investigated, but then its hardly the fault of the person that brought this to attention and more the employers for a knee jerk reaction.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[UnknowingFool]

It really depends on if the plaintiff's former employer admitted it or not. Some employers are very skiddish about any publicity. All that matters is that the blog was a factor for them to change his employment.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[twidarkling]

Gullible is just a primary characteristic. Secondary characteristics are what the individual lawyers look for. Defending a spouse accused of murdering her philandering husband? Get a lady who has been through a divorce. Prosecuting a fraud case? Get a bunch of poor people. You look for people more likely to be sympathetic to your side, and then you don't have to worry about how strong your case is. You just bleat at them that this person is who they [hate/love] and who cares about facts?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[ShakaUVM]

>>They are *instructed in the law* by the judge, and are told to follow it.

Maybe that's how it should be done, but consider the Brian Aitken case.

New Jersey law allows you to have guns (locked in a case) in your trunk if you're moving. The police and the assistant DA both said it was obvious he was moving.

The judge told the jury they couldn't consider that exemption to the draconian New Jersey gun control laws (the judge deciding the fact he was not moving for the jury). Thus both dictating fact and to ignore law to the jury.

Brian, having his exemption stripped from him by the judge, was promptly sentenced to the minimum 3 years in jail, which was newly classified as a "violent offense", meaning he lost his child visitation rights and hasn't been able to see his kid in two years, even though he was pardoned by Christie.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, Greece.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really a right thing to be honest. There are just as many free speech advocates even amongst super nuts on the right (possibly more).

As you have forgotten, their speech usually includes prying something from their cold dead fingers... and they take free speech the same way.

Not allowing freedom of speech is actually more associated with socialism, communism, etc. Which, on this planet, we still can't accuse the right of that.

You might not believe me. Go to Europe and enjoy your "free speech" there. Then tell me, are they closer to the left or right? Go hang 10 with Chavez and tell me how his free specch is working out.

I'm not a brainiac. But what you're saying doesn't quite compute. It just kind of reflects what your personal beliefs are, untrue or not.

Congrats, you towed the party line.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

Yeah, they sued for interfering with the contract between employer and employee. I guess if I work phone support and go into a profanity-filled tirade at every customer who calls, the first who complains and I get fired, I get to sue them for informing my boss of my improper behavior. After all, this is someone who was involved in fraud who was fired for it because someone pointed out he was involved in fraud. Telling the truth will get you sued if you say anything bad about anyone employed. And that's what you are defending.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

The truth still is a defense to libel. The problem is that this case was not brought under a libel action, but instead under "Emotional Distress."

No, that's what the award was for (some actual damages, and some distress). The lawsuit was for contractual interference, for leading to the contract between employer and employee being broken.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[aaronrp]

The International Olympic Committee, of course.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

Not really a right thing to be honest. There are just as many free speech advocates even amongst super nuts on the right (possibly more).

You are confusing "more Republican" with "more right." The right stands for some things, even if the Republicans and Teabaggers pretend it doesn't because they want to pick and choose some liberal/socialist things and claim them as conservative. But then, I don't know how to put that forward anymore. Some prick like you always purposefully misinterprets the point and goes off on some political rant. That's why the US is failing.

Congrats, you towed the party line.

You don't even know what party I'm a member of, and if you guessed "Democratic" you are wrong.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[mysidia]

Yeah... I will grant that it's insane. The defendant ought to have prevailed if for no other reason than the plaintiff has Unclean hands; with regards to the matter under dispute.

The plaintiff acting illegally and unethically in a way that effected the public gave rise to a journalistic duty for journalists to cover the subject. And the journalist is being sued for covering the subject.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sarten-X]

John Hoff didn't just "inform people". He sought to enrage people. His blog reads like a crusade for hatred of anyone who's ever done something wrong. No forgiveness, no conscience, and no concern for actually promoting the "justice" he claims to seek.

The responsible thing to do would be to alert the research group of the conflict of interest, then let it go. Maybe Jerry Moore would still have gotten fired, and that'd be the end of it. That's not what happened, though. Instead, Hoff's blog post also attacks Moore's employers, calling them naive and questioning their credibility. It's pretty clear that his intent was to bias any critical review, and embarrass the research group into firing Moore, and that's illegal.

Maybe, as you implied, the research group was aware of Moore's history. Maybe it's what they wanted, but just couldn't take the bad publicity John Hoff was stirring up. Or perhaps Moore is repentant for his past wrongdoings, and is trying to set things right? Hoff never gave Moore a fair chance at redemption.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is a kind of anti-whistleblower law I guess? You can get sued for pointing out when a colleague does something unethical or illegal?
Bizarre.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sarten-X]

The judge in that case was fired, because he made several other bad rulings, too. Did you expect a bunch of humans to somehow be perfect, just because they hold a particular office?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

I may not have been clear enough. As to that question, yes in the sense that the posting was part of a cause and effect chain that lead to the firing. In teh literal sense the plaintiff would not have been fired had the article not been published. That is probably what lead to the judgment against the defendant..

However, it is NOT the same thing as being responsible for the firing. That, as you said, falls squarely on the plaintiff's shoulders.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the government shutting him up. The government is enforcing the finding made in the government court. They are the enforcement arm for this.

Well isn't that exactly what they should be doing?

They gave the guy a fair trial (presumably) and a jury decided that he was guilty. Is the government just supposed to step in and say, "No, the jury is wrong."? This will get appealed and hopefully some higher court will rule more sensibly. I'd be a hell of a lot more worried if the government just decided to ignore jury verdicts.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

I should clarify. The jury is instructed that they may not judge the law or the likely punishment, only the facts. They are then to robotically apply the law to those facts. They are then told what the law is.

In spite of that instruction, the body of law the U.S. inherited it's jury system from explicitly acknowledged a juror's duty to judge the law as well as the facts. The founding fathers as well as a number of supreme court justices from the beginning to as recently as 1946 certainly agreed.

Of course, finally, the court cannot compel a juror to act against his or her conscience and cannot even examine a juror's decision making process. (that's not to say it wouldn't happen, only that it would violate due process).

From all of that, the upshot is that all jury instruction in the modern U.S. court is faulty.

Of course, once you get the jury to the point of agreeing to judge the facts and then roboticly apply the law as told to them by the judge, the judge is free to create any desired verdict (though it MIGHT be thrown out if an appellate court finds that the instruction was faulty enough).

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[fishbowl]

Last time I got called I got excluded, I think because of my answer to "What magazines do you read?" (Strategy & Tactics, Circuit Cellar, Computer Music -- I didn't even mention any of the really technical things I read, or nerds-only titles, or anything political).

A time before that I got excluded, I think because of my answer about bumper stickers. (I described, loud and clear, the suite of profoundly anti-Republican/anti-War/anti-Bush stickers that were on my car at the time.) That time I was not surprised to be excluded in voir dire, but the other time I was very surprised.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

And you sir are a pedophile.

Wish you had some protection from libel now?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[erroneus]

There is a kind of short-sightedness where it comes to information and truth. If the truth hurts, suppress it. We must not have knowledge of the truth, especially the painful truth, else we might learn from it and improve things. It doesn't matter if it's government or not -- it is all about people and their mindset. The government is run by people, after all, not "government beings." We are all human beings. It is this short-sightedness that is the issue here and should be brought to light.

With all that said, interfering with someone's employment is another matter. Someone contacted the person's employer with the purpose of having him fired in mind. That person, was not the blogger, however. Seems to me that the suit targetted the wrong party where this verdict was concerned. And as I read the article, the person who actually wrote the letter was a co-defendant and settled with the plaintiff. The person who was responsible for the only charge that mattered had ALREADY SETTLED with the plaintiff.

This should have ended the case and the judge should have ruled as such.

"Taking credit for someone's firing" is meaningless. That's like taking credit for your football team winning the game. Someone else took the actions while the remaining defendant cheered.

This definitely needs an appeal and should be overturned.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

They gave the guy a fair trial (presumably) and a jury decided that he was guilty.

Under what laws? The goverment's. Under what rules? The government's. Who enforces the judgment? The government.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[dave1791]

The GP's point is that both sides have to agree on each and every juror. If I was a lawyer doing jury selection, I’d certainly not allow the opposing side to stack it with people likely to be reflexively sympathetic to the their argument.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Teun]

Indeed, when I'd ever be faced with the choice I would decline a jury trial.

I want my cases, pro or con, to be decided according to the legal criteria, not the personal hysteria of some 'peer'.

Application of law is complicated enough, it doesn't need meddling by a bunch of lay persons specifically selected for their ignorance on the subject.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Teun]

As if that single juror can't make such a difference in the system you seem to like.

First of all, in civilised countries man shall not decide over life or death, that's left to God.
Secondly, in civilised countries life cases will be decided by a court, not a single judge.

Go learn about the application of justice in different and respected systems outside of your county.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Patch86]

I wonder if he can sue Brian Aitken (and other defendants) for causing him to be fired? Surely the grounding for such a suit is on no shakier ground than the one in TFA.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Teun]

The jurors that didn't quit upon being faced with this limitation should be sued.

As should the judge.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[HungryHobo]

His blog reads like a crusade for hatred of anyone who's ever done something wrong. No forgiveness, no conscience

your words would be more convincing if he'd actually lied.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he wrote.
you're not required to be nice.
lets have a look at this " crusade for hatred " shall we...

Word reached me about a week ago from a source that former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore had been hired by the UROC program at U of M; the nice (but obviously naive) folks bringing North Minneapolis that big, expensive, rather slowly-delivered project at the former Penn-Plymouth shopping center. Another creditable source made some calls and confirmed firsthand this was, in fact, the case. Jerry Moore is now--among many other things--a gopher.

My U of M gopher blood boils with shame. THE SHAME!!!!!!!!

Jerry Moore--who has been a plaintiff in a lawsuit against JACC, and was fired from his executive director position for misconduct, (fistfight, cough cough) is nothing if not a controversial figure in the Jordan Neighborhood...

So when word reached certain neighborhood movers and shakers about Jerry being hired by UROC, and being involved with some kind of "research" about mortgage issues in North Minneapolis, consternation was followed by seething anger. Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. The collective judgment of decent people in the Jordan Neighborhood--"decent" being defined as "not actively involved in mortgage fraud"--is that Jerry Moore is the last person who should be working on this kind of task and WHAT THE HELL was U of M thinking by hiring him?

Even assuming (as lawyers say) "arguendo" that Jerry Moore has received a bad rap over 1564 Hillside Ave. N., the problem remains that current JACC leadership will have nothing to do with Jerry Moore, and the Jordan Neighborhood makes up a big part of North Minneapolis. It's not hard to picture situations where the UROC people attempt to engage the leadership of Jordan, but all the "Jordanites" will want to talk about is, "Why the hell did you hire Jerry Moore, and when will you be getting rid of him? Get rid of him and we will talk."

That's the word I'm getting from neighborhood leadership. In fact, my reason for delaying posting about this matter was because I was prevailed upon to avoid airing this dirty laundry until there was a chance, behind the scenes, to call some leaders at U of M and fix this mess. With the matter still pretty much the same as it was a week ago, I was contacted and told to please, please blog about this matter. So: Jerry Moore is working for UROC, and UROC has just lost major cred with North Minneapolis leadership. (The ones not involved with mortgage fraud, anyway, which clearly doesn't include all the self-declared leadership)

In fact, some are going so far as to say UROC has never had the creditability of CURA, which is another program at U of M which has been working with neighborhood issues for a long time, very successfully, though often with a low profile. The question being asked in this time of budget cuts is "Why is there a UROC at all? Why not just have things done under CURA, a program with a proven track record which would never, in a hundred years, pull this kind of stupid bulls***t?"

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only an "equitable" defense which applies to "equitable remedies" (see the link in the wikipedia page). In this case the plaintiff doesn't seem to be seeking an "equitable remedy".

I have no idea what the "trash tort" or the cause of action is in this case though, so I'm just guessing.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

1) In Italy they would have sued him for higher than 60K, telling the truth in right winged countries IS the main reason for getting hit with a libel cause.
2) In UK they went as far as silencing BBC with a judge's order because of bank fraud (which was exposed thanks to Wikileaks.
It is quite definitely government's policies limiting what you can or can't say without risking your property and personal freedom.

Laws and which laws are enforced laws are quite definitely a government's policy issue.
Truth not being considered a valid defense is a really bad symptom for an apparently democratic country.
Laws alwasy follow the interests of the rulers, cliques and elite with power, more or less overtly, depending on the level of feigned democracy of a country.
Freedom to inform is the BASIS of any democratic process.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[clemdoc]

prove it in court.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[silentcoder]

Courts are still law enforcement. Even in civil cases.
It's not just the community making a decision - it's the community making a decision and then telling a lot of people in uniforms with big guns to come shoot you or throw you in a cage if you don't do what they decided.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you even sue Zeus? Under whose jurisdiction does he fall?

I don't know. I tried to read the relevant laws, but it was all Greek to me. ...I'll get my coat.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[silentcoder]

Did you actually READ the page you linked ?

Unclean hands is not a defense against financial damage awards, only against injunctive awards and other forms of equitable award.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

What does any of this have to do with the case at hand?

Oh, that's right, nothing. But there's nothing like posting an unrelated scare story to prop up your karma a bit, is there?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Ephemeriis]

"Does not compute!"

How does this have anything to do with the government clamping down on free speech?

If you actually read the comment you're replying to, you'd see that Bill was talking about anonymous speech on the Internet.

If the blogger had been truly anonymous, there would have been no possibility for a lawsuit. Which is what makes sites like Wikileaks important - they protect those who leak from repercussions that might keep them from leaking the information.

And as the government cracks down on anonymous speech on the Internet - by going after sites like Wikileaks, and passing laws to require you to use your real name on-line, and whatever else - you're going to see more stupidity like this.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Unequivocal]

Great follow up - thanks for the additional info there. As another CP noted, there is a thing called jury nullification where if the jury decides the law is not "right" it can disregard it.

I was more referring to cases where a juror wants to go home early and decides that following the law (mechanically as you say) will take too long. That's illegal, or at least I'm pretty sure it is..

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[erroneus]

The act that got the plaintiff fired was the letter written by Don Allen, not the remaining defendant. The defendant blogger was calling attention to a person involved in a case of mortgage fraud -- ostensibly an accessory to the fraud. The thing about blogging is that it's like an "open letter" with fewer readers and less credibility than professionally published journalism. It wasn't until someone ELSE wrote to the plaintiff's employer did "tortious interference" activity occur.

Anyone should be entitled to write about things that make them angry -- in fact, they say it's therapeutic. But this blogger did NOT contact the plaintiff's employer. That was someone else, who was initially a co-defendant. settled out of court and then testified against the remaining defendant. Sounds to me like they threatened Allen into cooperating with the plaintiff in order to get the blogger taken down.

When it comes to "malicious" I would say that describes the plaintiff better than the defendant. After all, they already SETTLED with the person who actually committed tortious interference. So that matter was settled. The four remaining complaints were tossed out by the judge. So to pursue a claim against someone who did not commit the act is QUITE malicious.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sarten-X]

Why is it only lies that can be malicious? Even truth can be distorted by careful word choice. Let's look at all the inflammatory rhetoric:

the nice (but obviously naive) folks

that big, expensive, rather slowly-delivered project

My U of M gopher blood boils with shame.

who has been a plaintiff in a lawsuit against JACC

misconduct, (fistfight, cough cough)

controversial figure

consternation was followed by seething anger

Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court

Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.

The collective judgment of decent people ... is that Jerry Moore is the last person who should be working on this kind of task

actively involved in mortgage fraud

Get rid of him and we will talk.

UROC has just lost major cred with North Minneapolis leadership.

involved with mortgage fraud

UROC has never had the creditability of CURA

Why is there a UROC at all

stupid bulls***t?"

How about just "the folks" and "that big project"? Why keep reiterating the "involvement", without the counterpoint that Moore was never charged, or even implicated in actual wrongdoing? Hoff's post goes beyond simply "not being nice", and wanders deep into the realm of "blatantly offensive."

Such offense is not necessary. Another blog manages to present more facts about Jerry Moore, without the attacks. That blog post provides an opportunity for the university to make a press release explaining their decision. There are no ultimatums, no excessive insults, and not even avoidance of the fact that Moore was never charged with wrongdoing. If Moore were still fired, it'd be much harder to present that post as the direct cause.

The suit was for "tortious interference". The jury found that Hoff intended to interfere with Moore's employment, rather than to just present facts to the public. The ultimatum of "get rid of him and we will talk", the pressure on UROC and the U of M, and the repetitive rhetoric all contribute to making that intent clear.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[visualight]

Thanks, now I know that his blog is not journalistic but is driven by agenda. The word hateful is appropriate.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I do not understand what prevents a juror from just saying to hell with the judge and voting any way they choose. That is the point of trial by jury afterall.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

if someone asks you if you're a god you say "YES"

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[gfreeman]

In the Land Of The Free(tm) shouldn't the suit proceeding be a right? In other words, it's a free for all unless the government is *allowed* to step in on a case?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[HungryHobo]

isn't he so mean.

so if you try to get someone fired for wrongdoing, no matter how justifiably (lets say you try to get that waiter who spat on you fired) then that's just "tortious interference" and they should be able to get damages out of you?

being nice would have made it no better.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[popeyethesailorman]

It's quite illegal in jurisdictions I'm familiar with for a juror in the jury room to say and then follow through by voting on a statement like "I don't care what the law says, I'm not convicting this guy even if he is guilty" while it is perfectly legal for the same juror to keep his trap shut and just vote "not guilty."

You didn't say where these jurisdictions are located, but I don't believe you are correct, at least in the USA - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_States Also, from http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_If_you_are_called_for_Jury_Duty.pdf "You can't be punished for voting according to your conscience. Judges (and other jurors) often pressure hold-out jurors into abandoning their true feelings and voting with the majority "

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Saxophonist]

It's Minnesota, and 5/6 of the jurors in a civil case must agree. They probably ended up with a seven-member jury because, in Minnesota, if there are alternate jurors, and all the jurors watch the whole trial, all the jurors participate in deliberations. So, a six-member jury plus an alternate is probably what happened here.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[intheshelter]

I disagree. The jurors are retards, that's what the lawyers want, gullible jurors. Many jurors just want to go home and will do anything to expedite a verdict, and many will take a "better safe than sorry" approach and convict just so they can sleep at night. No, if your life is in a jury's hands then you should be very afraid!

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

They can do so if they haven't been too intimidated.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[zzsmirkzz]

Juries are typically told that they MUST decide only on the facts, not on the law or on the fairness of the punishment.

Yes, Juries are lied to all the time. The judge will never tell the jury that they have the right (and obligation) to find a defendant not guilty of any crime that they believe is unjust. If they jurist does not believe the action the defendant took (and for the reason he took it). should not be illegal (or punishable in civil cases) they are required to vote "not guilty". It is called Jury Nullification, it is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is why it is everyone right to be tried in front of a jury of their peers. It was inconceivable to the writers of the constitution that 12 of your peers would support punishing a person via an immoral or unjust law which is why they gave the people the sole power to convict.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[osgeek]

That reasoning sounds a bit contrived and strains hard to support a thesis of "the man is keeping us down".

If anything, it looks like the law was designed to PROTECT a workers right to work without being attacked from the outside by those with means. It's likely that the tortious interference law was in place before the internet even existed, when the media controllers had to be prevented from going after the little guy.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[zzsmirkzz]

So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.

Also, the answer the second question is "No". The plaintiff got fired due to his actions not because someone reported them. If the University had found out some other way, the Plaintiff would still have been fired and for the same reason.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[camperdave]

What's interesting here is the suit is not a libel suit. The suit was prosecuted on the basis of he wrote that maliciously for the purpose of getting the plaintiff fired; so libel or defamation is not a claim made in the suit.

In most places it is the maliciousness that makes a statement libellous or defamatory. It doesn't matter if what the statement is fact or fancy. Of course, it's a lot easier to be malicious with lies than the truth.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[osgeek]

However, with the swing to the far right

That sounds suspicious on the surface. To which industries are you referring as being afforded special protection?

Even if there are cases of corporate protection against the use of free speech, the most obvious free speech suppression I've seen lately is coming from the left. It started with political correctness, which was made law with so called "hate speech" laws. The left is also the side pushing for "equal time" from private broadcasters.

Didn't the right-majority Supreme Court just take a huge blow for freedom of speech in the Snyder vs Phelps case?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

Yes, in that case it would be juror misconduct. The hard part would be proving it.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

You're reaching, you're reaching so far down the rabbit hole your arm is going to come off. It's a shame to because well...ok it's not really a shame. You're just a simpleton. The government's status as a neutral entity forming a court has no effect on the researcher's rights to sue. The blogger stupidly made some remarks about getting him fired (righteously or otherwise) and that seems to be largely why he was found against. The facts were correct but he moved the factual argument to an opinion piece with a personal agenda against him which can be found to be a crime even if in this case it was righteous. The law also protects individuals from corporate smear campaigns and the like. If you are willing to fight then individual jurors who have no position in the government can reward them.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

I said yes in the sense of it being a part of the cause and effect chain that ended in his firing. Of course merely being part of the cause and effect does not necessarily imply responsibility. To find who is responsible, we must go back a few more steps to where the plaintiff gets himself involved in fraud.

It;'s easy to see how faulty instruction to the jury changes the outcome of the trial in this case. All it takes is for the judge to give the jury the false idea that merely being part of the cause and effect is enough. That, of course, is why I said I wouldn't read much into a jury verdict. A guilty verdict does NOT mean that 12 people thought the defendant should be punished, it may mean that they were successfully cowed into mechanically applying the law as told to them onto the facts.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

Agreed

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sarten-X]

Moore committed no wrongdoing in his research job, and as far as the law's concerned, hasn't done anything illegal in the past, either. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

It's closer to walking into a restaurant, recognizing a waiter as that guy who rudely bumped into you a year ago, and trying to get him fired.

Being nice changes the intent from "force the guy out of his job" to "spreading information to the public". It's not what you say, but how you say it that counts.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Politburo]

For obvious reasons, these kinds of discussions and rulings are done with the jury not present. So they likely had no idea. The idea of suing a juror is absurd.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Unequivocal]

You're right on the moral point. Sorry I was vague. My experience (and California is where I specifically had this experience) is that it is illegal to disregard the law for certain reasons. The specific case I was on where the judge started briefly down the road towards tossing a juror in jail was where a juror was saying "I don't care if the law says XYZ or the facts say ABC, I'm tired of this trial and I want to go home. I'm just going to vote DEF to get done with this." Maybe the crime was in ignoring what the facts say? But I think the judge said that it's illegal to ignore the process of the law as well (though he omitted the moral issue / nullification right that juries have, unsurprisingly). But I don't think jury nullification rights would protect a juror behaving this way?

Apparently a non-moral/conscience action like this is not legal (in CA?). Maybe contempt of court? I didn't learn the law involved as it didn't get that far, but I don't think that all actions / reasons for actions in the jury room are legal. Moral disregard for the law, as you point out, is legal..

Maybe I've got my facts wrong, but this was my experience. The judge wasn't just pressuring a juror to fall in line (as you point out, that's common) the judge was saying that if the juror persisted with that behavior, they could be guilty of a crime..

In all events, thanks for expanding on this point and for the civil dialogue.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Unequivocal]

In the case I was on, the juror was telling everyone that this was their intent, so pretty easy to prove it when the juror is telling all the other jurors and the judge! :)

The juror backed down when they got schooled on the law and realized that if they persisted they could rapidly move from the jury box to the defendant's chair..

I did also see a juror get a bench warrant issued for them when they just stopped showing up. Never did find out what happened to that person, but I learned an important jury duty tip: once you start showing up for jury duty you had better finish the process (not showing up at all seems like a much, much less serious offense if any at all).

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

It makes sense. Not showing at all means you get replaced and life goes on, but if too many start the trial and then stop showing, they have to waste everybody's time by starting all over again.

I guess the moral is if you're going to break the law, don't tell a judge :-)

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[speroni]

Clearly all cases should trial by Slashdot.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Apocryphos]

Let me know when God gets back to you on that decision.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more about how easily they can be swayed emotionally - which does tend to correlate with lack of intelligence, but not necessarily. Both sides of the case want that regardless of how weak or strong their side of the case is - although they of course try to pick those they feel more easily swayed to their side.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Slashdot Parent]

Yeah, they sued for interfering with the contract between employer and employee. I guess if I work phone support and go into a profanity-filled tirade at every customer who calls, the first who complains and I get fired, I get to sue them for informing my boss of my improper behavior.

That's not quite the same. There are a few reason why your example would not be tortious interference:

1. The complainer was not specifically trying to get you fired. He was merely describing his experience. For all the complainer knew, you'd get a reprimand, better training, or who knows? In the case of the blogger, he wrote that he was attempting to get the plaintiff fired, and then bragged that he got plaintiff fired after the fact. He also took specific action to get plaintiff fired by mailing the damaging information to the employer. Big mistakes.
2. Irrespective of the complainer, you were likely to get fired anyway. Because you would have been fired anyway, we can't say that the complainer interfered.

It was the speech, combined with the action, that made this rise to the level of tortious interference in the eyes of the jury. I'm still not convinced, but I don't know the rest of the facts of the case.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[HungryHobo]

then the suit should have been against his former employers for wrongful dismissal given that they apparently fired him on the sayso of some randomer.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[KClaisse]

But the point is, if the government was truly protecting freedom of speech for less wealthy people the same way it seems rich and powerful people are protected then this whole situation might have played out in a very different way. If the accused had been a much more wealthy and powerful person it stands to reason this might not have even made it to a trial, and even if it did the jury would have certainly found him/her not guilty on the grounds that it was ridiculous to sue in the first place. Wealth and power really decided the winner of this long before the lawsuit was even started. I hope this publicity helps him win his appeal.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but if you admit this, or even try and explain it to your fellow jurors, you'll most likely be removed. Some judges have threatened contempt of court for people handing out FIJA pamphlets.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Omnifarious]

Yes and no... it shouldn't be possible to find grounds in law for the suit to proceed. You have the right to sue anybody you want to, but if you do so without sufficient legal grounds you are typically held liable for needlessly tying up the court system.

Tortious interference with employment should generally only have even a vague chance of working if the person gave the employer false information, or information that they were under obligation to keep secret, or they clearly benefitted materially from giving the information to the employer. Publicly calling for someone to be fired because of a clear conflict of interest that's truthful and well documented should be laughed out of court, and certainly shouldn't result in any sort of finding for the plaintiff.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[ShakaUVM]

>>What does any of this have to do with the case at hand?

Discussion of judges and jury instructions, and some of the absurdities we deal with today.

In the meantime, Aitken is a pardoned felon who still can't visit his kid.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[BranMan]

I would say that the Brian Aitken case is THE reason the founding fathers mentioned jury nullification in their papers. If the jury was aware of what was going on, they had the right and responsibility to nullify the verdict and the judge's instructions in this case. It is exactly for the reason, and no other, that jurors need to be the final bulwark against crooked or incompetent judges. Not to judge the law, but to judge the judges - and apply justice when there is injustice going on. [I'm going to get on someone's list for this one.]

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

Yes, they are now quite careful to weed out any juror that is even aware of their duty to judge the law. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I was asked to swear an oath that I would judge only the facts, not the law or the likely penalty. When I indicated that I could not conscionably do that, I was dismissed.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

Even if there are cases of corporate protection against the use of free speech, the most obvious free speech suppression I've seen lately is coming from the left.

Then you only see what you want to see, and you aren't separating out "right" from "Republican" and coming to the defense (or attack) of a party based on your affiliation. I tried this time to use right and left, rather than liberal and conservative because so many don't know the definitions of liberal or conservative and just translate them in their minds to some political party. However, it looks like it's just as bad with right and left.

Sadly, I think that's purposeful by the right and left so that no one can discuss politics without discussing party. So no one can say "free speech is good, I should be able to bash minorities regardless of Political Correctness, as well as bash employees and corporations." Instead, people latch on to whatever party they think would say the same thing that the person decides to take the statement to be indicating, then argue from that point. Political discourse in the US is impossible, and as such, the US will fail as a nation.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[AK Marc]

The government's status as a neutral entity forming a court has no effect on the researcher's rights to sue.

The government sets the rules about who can sue and for what. And, from the judgment being made as it was, the government (judge) either failed, or the government set up rules to allow someone getting sued for sharing and inconvenient truth. Either way, the government committed the failure, and the plaintiff merely exploited it.

The facts were correct but he moved the factual argument to an opinion piece with a personal agenda against him which can be found to be a crime even if in this case it was righteous.

No, it was found to be illegal, not a crime. Perhaps the real issue here is that you don't understand the law or any legal terms, and are speaking out of your ass.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Sarten-X]

"This contract may be terminated at any time, for any or no reason."

If the contract allowed the university to fire him, he probably can't.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Hognoxious]

Why is it interference to point out reasons why a person shouldn't be in the job?

A restaurant gets 30 valid complaints on one shift about the food and so they boot the cook. What's wrong with that?

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Hognoxious]

Juries are typically told that they MUST decide only on the facts, not on the law

Rubbish.

If it's a fact that the defendant punched someone in the face, that's not enough to reach a guilty verdict. You must also consider the law about self defense, for example.

Last (and only) time I was in voir dire we were asked to swear that we would do so.

Should it happen again, I suggest you listen more carefully.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[Hognoxious]

With all that said, interfering with someone's employment is another matter. Someone contacted the person's employer with the purpose of having him fired in mind.

I don't see what's wrong with that, if there's a factual basis why the person shouldn't be employed.

If there isn't a factual basis then libel already covers it.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sjames]

Late to the party I see, that was asked and answered already. By that, I meant that the juror is instructed that they may not *judge* the law. That is, they can't decide that the defendant DID buy pot and did have it on him, and that is illegal but prohibition is wrong, so not guilty.

It wouldn't hurt to read a bit more carefully, expecially when your tone is a bit brusque.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[HungryHobo]

well then that's where the problem lies, not with the randomer.

Sometimes I'm thankful to live somewhere that has decent employee protection so that such a clause wouldn't be legal.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sznupi]

Well, it's not like many people have definition of "right" or "left" which doesn't rely on... party affiliation.

Re:I'm going to quote an old robot saying

[sznupi]

So... sir, are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? ;p

Zenger Case

[Arch_Android]

I suppose we need a 21st centery version of the John Peter Zenger case. Shame. And of course, also shows that perhaps judges should actually read the Constitution.

What crime?

[guspasho]

The linked article doesn't clearly say what crime the blogger is supposed to have committed (tortuitous interference?), and "having your facts straight" doesn't indemnify you from everything.

I'm not taking sides and criticizing the blogger, but the reporter could have done a better job of explaining how a jury found him guilty and of what crime.

Re:What crime?

[ScentCone]

Well, as bad as the summary is, it did use the word "sued," not to be confused with "prosecuted." Crimes are prosecuted. Beefs between people ("He made me lose my job and ruined my reputation!") are the stuff of civil suits.

Re:What crime?

[rgriff59]

Tortious interference doesn't involve truth, just interference with intent to disrupt a business relationship without privilege in that relationship. When Hoff went directly to the employer, the University of Minnesota, the line was crossed, and it stopped being journalism and turned into tortious interference. I'm not attempting to justify this as right, morally or otherwise, but it does follow the logic of the law.

If I were to be looking for a real villain, I'd pick Don Allen, who involved Hoff's blog in his personal shot at Moore, the mortgage fraudster, via the U of M, then as co-defendant, settled with Moore and turned witness against Hoff. There is no integrity to be found in those actions. It appears both Allen and Moore both deserve to burn in their own hells. But, good luck Johnny Northside; you're going to need it.

Re:What crime?

[yelvington]

I'm not taking sides and criticizing the blogger, but the reporter could have done a better job of explaining how a jury found him guilty and of what crime.

As the founding editor of startribune.com, I'm going to agree with you. The story doesn't take you by the hand, assuming that you know nothing whatsoever, and walk you gently through the facts. There's a significant backstory that isn't provided (or linked). The story doesn't explain the nature of civil proceedings (as distinct from criminal), which obviously is confusing many Slashdot commenters, including you.

I'm not picking on Abby Simons, the writer. These shortcomings aren't unusual. Most journalism -- print or online -- doesn't attempt to provide such context. In my view, this contributes to the general ignorance of the population, which journalism is supposed to alleviate.

A Web-centric report that was fully developed would link to previous coverage and external resources that explain the legal points that are at issue. Very little journalism, whether initiated on the Web or otherwise, is so Web-centric. We can blame time or other resources, or our ancient content management systems, or journalism education ... the fact is that journalism is failing to fully inform a public that desperately needs a more coherent and comprehensive form of storytelling.
 

Re:What crime?

[HuntingHades]

He wasn't guilty of any crime, he was found liable for Tortious Interference in a civil suit (I'm pretty sure tortuitous is an error in the article). There are two flavors of Tortious Inteference - 1) interfering with a business by making false claims against the business or individual's reputation to drive business away. 2) Interfering with a mutual contact between two parties by committing "tort" (a wrongful act)

Basically he can be found liable for Tortious interference because he knew of the employment contract between U of M and Mr Moore, and intentionally induced U of M to breach the contact while he himself has no privilege to induce a breach of contract. Really the key element that the jury has to decide whether or not the blog post constituted tort.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Elements
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:
1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
5. The contractual relationship is breached.
6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

I'm just posting to read what I write

[Anonymous Coward]

"I find it really hard to believe that there was a degree of emotional distress caused by this reporting that outstrips that suffered by [a Marine's] family," Kirtley said.

The verdict also surprised U of M law professor William McGeveran, but he wasn't so certain that it will be easily overturned. Appeals courts tend to give a lot of credence to jury verdicts, he said.

This will be an interesting case to watch. How the appeal will be handled will be very interesting. What I'm really curious about is how the lawyers of Jerry Moore convinced a jury that "Johnny Northside" was liable monetarily for Jerry getting shit-canned for his own fuck up. Either the jury collectively lost it's goddamn mind, or the Slashdot summary may be lacking in pertinent information!

In Soviet Slashdot, website trolls you!

Needs more details

[Herkum01]

It was not the government vs a blogger but rather an individual who sued them for causing him to lose his job. It was also a jury trial NOT the government who made the decision.

Evidently the reason for the lawsuit was the blogger accused him of being involved in a fraud mortgage fraud and Moore was fired for it. So it was based upon a libel claim(I am guessing).

Last week there was a post about a 12-year accusing a teacher of being a "pedophile". A number of people came out of the woodwork to chastise this child for potentially ruining the teacher's career and life. I wonder if people are going to speak up against this blogger as he caused Moore to lose his job and impacted his reputation accusing him of being a crook.

Re:Needs more details

[Anonymous Coward]

More proof that juries are solely made of idiots. Hence the 90% conviction rate or whatever it is these days.

Kind of falls in line with a lot of stuff these days where if you're suspected then you're guilty and that's the end of that.

Re:Needs more details

[TechForensics]

Last week there was a post about a 12-year accusing a teacher of being a "pedophile". A number of people came out of the woodwork to chastise this child for potentially ruining the teacher's career and life. I wonder if people are going to speak up against this blogger as he caused Moore to lose his job and impacted his reputation accusing him of being a crook.

The claim the teacher was a pedophile was untrue.

This case deals with when you may and may not disclose even true facts about someone's past.

Re:Needs more details

[Anonymous Coward]

The blogger told the truth, the liar child did not. Big difference, no hypocrisy detected. Instead, I sense a false equivalency.

Re:Needs more details

[smellotron]

A number of people came out of the woodwork to chastise this child for potentially ruining the teacher's career and life. I wonder if people are going to speak up against this blogger as he caused Moore to lose his job and impacted his reputation accusing him of being a crook.

Perhaps that is related to the presence of the "Sex Offender List" lifetime achievement award? Also, consensus at the time was that the child was lying. Lying is morally wrong. Mortgage fraud is lying. These people coming out of the woodwork are supporting the moral value of honesty, not the mere act of "public accusation".

You want the truth?

[cloakedpegasus]

You can't handle the truth!

Is it really his fault?

[ashvagan]

How can you fire someone based on a "rant" of a blogger? If the blogger didn't suggest termination of Mr. Moore from the university, how can it be his fault? Even if he did, it's not like he's head of the university's board making all these decisions. If I declare in my blog that Mr. Moron is really a moron (which in all probabilities, he is), and his company fires him saying, "Surely, we don't want any moron to be in our ranks", is that really my fault?

Clear Cut Case Of ....

[ChasmCoder]

Mularky,

The fact that the researcher lost their job, should not have prompted them to pursue the blogger, rather they should have pursued the establishment that "released" them.

The only reason the researcher should have been let go in the first place, due to their fraudulent mortgage, would be if they were skewing the data in some fashion so as to make it unreliable, or un-empirical.

I sincerely believe this is a repercussion or such organizations as WikiLeaks and clearly demonstrates their effects on individuals who do not know how to think for themselves.

The charges against this individual should certainly be dropped on appeal.

That is, however, merely my opinion.

Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[FlapHappy]

Doing just 5 minutes of research, I confirmed what I suspected. Northside is a blogger-activist-vigilante. Really, he is a total jerk who spends a considerable amount of time attacking anyone he doesn't like. Basically, he is a troll who took off the mask. I'm not real happy with the legal precedence this might set but no one should think he is some perfectly innocent blogger who is getting bullied around. Really, it is the other way around - he is getting fined for his own bullying, aggressive, tactics.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[pclminion]

So, if you're a jerk, we get to twist the law to hold you accountable for things that aren't illegal? That's how it works?

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Tigger's Pet]

The way things seem to be going, it doesn't matter if you are a jerk, a terrorist, a fine upstanding member of the community, or even a citizen of a different country - 'They' get to twist the law in whatever way they want to achieve whatever aims suit them at the time.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

No twisting of the law required; if you get sacked or lose a contract because of something someone said, you can sue them for this, even if they didn't know that saying it would cause you problems.

It's contract law, but it's not normally used.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[FlapHappy]

No, but what goes around comes around. I have no idea on whether or not the ruling is correct but people are painting him as some sort of 'nice-guy' getting victimized by a corrupt system. And yes, if he acted like an ass in court, I expect he elicited little sympathy from the jury.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[TechForensics]

Anyone who really studies it knows the law tries hard to be fair. It really seems fair that a mean, destructive person with no legitimate interest in disclosing the information he did (so the jury would have found) got his nose rubbed in it. If the jury felt he maliciously and without justification caused the harm he did, then damages were and appropriate punishment for the blogger. Blogging is still publishing, even if it's scary to think YOU COULD BE NEXT because you're a blogger too. Tip: No risk if you aren't a malicious SOB. The law applies whether you publish a magazine article or a blog.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[TechForensics]

Devastating someone's life without a reason or a justification IS illegal, in the sense that there is a remedy for it in the Courts. See earlier post about invasion of privacy, from which the law protects you.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately court rulings establish legitimacy with that ruling for those circumstances. Asshole or not, if we don't ensure his speech is protected, who's going to ensure ours is?

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[FlapHappy]

Understood, which is why I said, "I'm not real happy with the legal precedence this might set."

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[joocemann]

So you're against activism when it doesn't have sugar coated smiles and modest handouts?

Go play more candyland. The real world, and the hard work it takes to make things better, is far too 'dirty' for you I'd guess.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[FlapHappy]

Yeah, you're right. Civility is a dead concept. Decent people suck! I think I'll go punch someone now.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[joocemann]

Civility is one way to be active, but couth/tact is not always required and lack of such should not be a deciding factor as to the right/wrong of the situation. Punching someone would be wrong; you missed the point, again, for your lack of rational perspective. If you think the way a message is delivered will determine your ability to accept the facts in it, then you've missed some of the most important lessons in life and its hardly worth talking to you anymore. Done with you now.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[FlapHappy]

Well, I see at least that you subscribe to your own philosophies so I can't call you a hypocrite. And really, did I miss the point when I said I was going to go punch someone or simply just running to the end of moral decay where it gets really ugly. Your point was taken and returned in jest - to bad you didn't get it. We can at least agree on one thing. This conversation is going nowhere.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

If nothing else, learn this from this case: Civil suits have nothing to do with legality. All too often people around here confuse the idea that civil suits and somehow associated with legal or illegal actions. They're plainly not.

Another place that you can draw this from is the OJ Simpson case. Think of him what you will but the man was found not guilty in a court of law. On the legal level the man did nothing wrong. Still, he was drawn into a civil case and lost. He was at no real legal fault in the eyes of the justice system but he still got beaten down in the end.

And while there are plenty of times that this kind of thing sucks there are other times where it serves to help victims who'd otherwise live in squaller.

What it comes down to is having a jury that knows where these lines are drawn but for each person that line is in a different place so there will be no agreement on damages awarded among most people for any one case.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without a reason or justification"?

Exposing wrongdoing to the public is an end in and of itself. If these allegations had not been truthful, libel charges would been able to stick; as they didn't, there is no reasonable room for recovery.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Grapplebeam]

So because you don't like him, he should be punished with bad laws? The ACLU would like to have a word with you. Civil liberties aren't for YOU, they're to protect others from you.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. (with your sarcasm)

Even the westboro baptist church was protect by our laws. I'm sure everyone wanted to bend the laws to slam them with lawsuits, but laws are laws and when we subjectively use them because people are angry or hurt then it just opens doors for the people that originally hurt us to be even more conniving.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Devastating someone's life without a reason or a justification IS illegal"

Funny, Police, Prosecutors, Judges, Politicians, etc do it all the time and they usually don't see any substantial civil and or criminal penalties.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If you're a jerk stalker repeatedly committing harassment against various people, you're not going to be able to hide behind the first amendment forever.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm not real happy with the legal precedence this might set

The Hennepin County District Court is basically the lowest possible court. They can't set any precedents.

Re:Johnny Northside is not a victim.

[tgd]

The law says I can sue you for damages for anything you do that impacts me. Doesn't matter what it is, doesn't matter if your action was legal or illegal. If you impacted me in any way, I have grounds to sue you for damages.

I may lose, but I may win.

*That* is the law. Not what you wish the law was.

Invasion of Privacy

[TechForensics]

As a lawyer I can also tell you the case may turn on invasion of privacy principles. The long-recognized tort of invasion of privacy gives a right of action for:

1. False Light -- you can't paint someone in a false light, ie photos with text suggesting that a virtuous person is promiscuous
2. Appropriation -- you can't take someone's image for advertising purposes (though photos taken in public are not invasion)
3. Invasion -- you can't burrow into someone's home life and expose embarrassing intimate detail
4. Disclosure --- you can't disclose even true facts about someone if there ensue unfair disruptive consequences, or if disclosure is done for malicious ends. "Unfair" is up to a jury.

It is (4) that is in play here.

These principles have lived long in the law. One imagines they became recognized as causes of action and continue to be because there is some justice in them, even if they may be occasionally misapplied.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

as a lawyer you are a total idiot. did you even read the article ? he was nailed due to the comments in the comment section not his own writing on the blog.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[TechForensics]

As a non-lawyer you are certainly entitled to your non-legal opinion.

From your post we might conclude you consider yourself a wit, and in fact, you may be half right.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[TechForensics]

I apologize for letting myself snipe at the hothead.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with you up until you called me a hothead.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[h4rr4r]

#4 sounds insane. Oh noes don't tell the truth if it hurts someones feelings. Further proof that our legal system is in bad need of reform.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

And by reform, surely you mean 'an enema'.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[JustOK]

You could sued for saying that.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Americano]

What's funny is, it appears you're the one who didn't read the article, which specifically states that the judge *threw out* the four statements that were opinion or comments posted by others:

District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the comments of others on the blog. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[nomadic]

As a lawyer I can also tell you the case may turn on invasion of privacy principles. The long-recognized tort of invasion of privacy gives a right of action for

It doesn't matter how long it's been recognized if it's not in play here. The only tort mentioned in the news article is tortious interference; it is a completely separate tort than invasion of privacy.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[robot256]

I take it the first insult went right over your head, then? Not surprising.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Full Metal Jackass]

Don't you think it's strange that he didn't sue the employer that fired him for the established fact rather than the person that brought the fact to light? I don't understand how, if once the facts were known the employer had no option but to fire him, that it was unfair to publicise the fact.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[whatnever]

1. Odd that during political races, (4) is fair game. Political opponents dig up dirt and sling it.
2. Convicted sexual predators and their locations are put on government websites. Here, (4) seems like fair game too.

So, I guess the key word is "unfair" consequences which is a judgment call -- and thus up to the jury.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[TechForensics]

...........the case may turn on invasion of privacy principles

It's often the case that the same underlying principles are expressed in different, though not interchangeable, causes of action. In fact, the emergence of the relevant principles in another recognized tort seems a kind of recognition of their wider ambit.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[TRRosen]

Political speech falls under absolute first amendment protection it can not be considered obscene or tortious.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

1. False Light -- you can't paint someone in a false light, ie photos with text suggesting that a virtuous person is promiscuous

As a lawyer I'd have hoped you'd know the difference between i.e. and e.g.
If you make such errors that totally change the meaning of a sentence, I'd rather you stayed well away from any case I have in court.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[nomadic]

While the invasion of privacy torts share the same underlying principles as the defamation torts, tortious interference doesn't really; genetically it is closer to breach of contract.

Re:Invasion of Privacy

[mijelh]

#4 : just like in China! They detained over 15 reporters for reporting on an anti-government demonstration, not because it didn't happen, but because it was "done with malicious intentions".
IANAL, but I hope we don't have this in Europe

Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[cmholm]

I believe Mr. Hogg's problem with his jury is that he writes about his beefs like an asshole. Mr. Moore was (is) a frequent subject of Mr. Hogg's writing.

If Mr. Hogg had been employed by and was writing in one of the area's alternative news sheets, he'd have been personally protected, and his publisher would be taking the heat. Worst case, he'd have been fired. But, by acting as a "sole proprietor" so to speak, it would have behooved him to present the facts in a more neutral tone. This is nothing new, but much as technology has made it easier for the likes of Mr. Hogg or you or me to get our word out there, it has made it easier for someone else to take offense to the point they consider it actionable.

As Jesse Eisenberg's character was told in Social Network, it wasn't the insult so much as that it was put on the internet.

Re:Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[joocemann]

Lack of couth is no reason to hold a truth-sayer as liar.

  If I saw you do something wrong, and was in public talking to friends, I might say "that asshole just rammed his punkass car into that old lady and ran!" Would that make me wrong? And if that is what happened, would the lack of couth&tact have any compelling force for you to not believe further evidence? I would expect rational adults to see through the 'ghetto' or 'immaturity' and at least see the Truth. But then again, we have a nation largely voted by people involved in heavy spiritual fantasy, and now more and more digressing into a world where 'feelings' are valued over 'facts'.

Re:Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[cmholm]

I hear the truth in what you're saying. All I'm saying is, using an inexact metaphor, yah catch more flies with honey. People don't like dickheads. Looking through more of Mr. Hogg's blog, as I'm sure the court did, they may have noted that he was pretty explicit about trying to literally run Mr. Moore out of town, and "geez, what if he doesn't like me?"

Re:Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[brobins8]

I would wonder whether the whole case would have gone differently if he hadn't taken partial credit for this guy getting fired. Not a good thing when you're about to get sued for maliciously interfering with the guy's job.

Re:Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[joocemann]

I understand fully. I'm glad we can agree here in the end. I argued with another person on this same thread who felt that the lack of honey was suffice to reject what is ultimately proven and right... There are many ways to accomplish a goal, or be active. In my sig you'll find I'm part of a politically active hip hop crew and we try our best to be positive and conscious in our lyrics. And while I am proud that we keep it far cleaner than most any other rap/hip-hop out there, I would be disappointed to know someone ignored or discredited the message for simple distaste in the chosen words.

Re:Wasn't Sued For Truth, Sued For Assholiness

[Anonymous Coward]

It should not be illegal to be an arsehole. I know I certainly use my blog to slam frauds and cheats. It's called honesty, if people don't like it then they should not be committing crimes in the first place.

He said She said...

[Songilly]

After reading the article it is light on what the details of the suite actually was. FTFA: "District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the comments of others on the blog. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing." So most of the charges were dropped by the judge, and it seems the last was about the blogger actively trying to get the other guy fired. He claimed to be telling the truth, and the other guy says, um no that ain't so. Looks like the jury decided that he wasn't all the truthful? Hard to say when little is given as far as evidence one way or the other. Perhaps the jury was right.

"Fined"? Fine!

[rueger]

Sigh... yes this is Slashdot, but still I dream of editors with some minimal grasp of the English language.

IANAL but will still say that non-one has been fined for anything.

They were sued, lost, and the plaintiff was awarded damages

Re:"Fined"? Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

From freedictionary.com:
Fine: A forfeiture or penalty to be paid to the offended party in a civil action.
Fined: To require the payment of a fine from; impose a fine on.

Sounds appropriate.

Liable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Critical element of intentional interference with contractual/economic relations from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) :

"Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach."

Unlike defamation, where truth is an affirmative defense, tortious interference does not permit this defense unless the person is, for instance, asked "Hey, is this guy involved in any mortgage issues?" But then again, tortious interference was designed to prevent competitors from doing awful things to steal and sabotage others' business. The tort in this case has indeed been shoe-horned from its commercial roots to a situation that is fundamentally about free speech. I would argue that if courts will allow interference to be brought up in a journalism context, which it certainly is here, they must expand privilege to encompass this sort of truth defense.

How far will they allow this to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Soon if I say "Hi" to my neighbor they be able to sue me for bothering them. It's a gross misrepresentation of the law that was put in place by our forefathers. The Judicial System and other parts of our government are far more corrupt and backwards than we should allow. It's time for people to take seriously the people they choose for these positions.

From the article

[TechForensics]

District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the comments of others on the blog. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.

I will agree that close reading of a news source will pay.

Probably unconstitutional

[Freddybear]

http://volokh.com/2011/03/11/60000-damages-for/

"...If the news story is accurate, and isn’t omitting some key facts, the result seems unconstitutional and quite wrong. Even if Hoff was trying to get Moore fired, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with such a goal. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts...."

Re:Probably unconstitutional

[1_brown_mouse]

So I can hound you and your workplace via my "blog" because you waste your employer's time on Slashdot.

"I'm gonna have you fired!"

"Well, I'm gonna have you killed."

You act and write like a douche, you have to pay the douche bills.

Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[SheDevilEsq]

The truth as a defense is for claims of defamation. From the reporting of the case, this sounds like the plaintiff won on an "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "intentional interference with contract" and/or "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage" claim, all of which are tort claims (personal injury). Look at it this way...if you were really obese, and someone kept taunting you, day in and day out, saying "You are fat and going to die", you could sue them for emotional harm *even though* those two statements are patently true. And, yes, I'm a lawyer, *and* I played one on TV. :-)

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[Anonymous Coward]

you could sue them for emotional harm

Which I think is idiotic. Toughen up. Words are just words. That old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is correct. What matters is your mentality and how strong your mind is. Weak-minded people shouldn't be able to sue others simply because they get offended.

Someone could be offended by virtually anything. What if they are offended by the fact that you said the word "the"? What if they are offended that you believe in a different religion than them and kept throwing that fact out there? Now, naturally, someone would probably respond with "but someone would never be allowed to sue for such stupid reasons!" Of course. But why should this be any different?

He told the truth and someone got fired. He didn't make them fire him, do the action himself, or anything of the sort.

Next thing you know I'm going to be sued for reporting a murderer, causing the police to investigate him and then causing him to go to jail. My intentions shouldn't matter in the least. He broke the law.

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[gmhowell]

This isn't you, is it?

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/i-cant-make-this-shit-up/

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[SheDevilEsq]

Hah! Nope..I'm neither the author, nor (any of) the women about whom he is complaining.

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[gmhowell]

If you were Roissy, it would make his writings much more interesting.

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[GWRedDragon]

Just because it is not a defamation claim does not preclude the application of the first amendment, though. SCOTUS has regularly ruled that speech generally regarding issues of public interest is protected, even when there is intent to commit harm.

Perhaps the most applicable case to this situation is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, wherein the Court ruled that the first amendment protection applied to an intentional infliction of emotional distress of a public figure.

So the real question instead should be, does the topic of the researcher qualify as a "matter of public interest and concern"?

Re:Truth is a Defense for Defamation, Not This

[Anonymous Coward]

1) This case took place in a neighborhood that has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis, in particular by mortgage fraud (e.g., the T.J. Waconia case). The defendant was involved in a particularly nasty case of mortgage fraud involving identity theft, for which Larry Maxwell went to jail for 16 years. The defendant's role came out in the process of trying those cases, but for whatever reason, was not himself prosecuted. The jury indicated that they basically agree with these facts.

2)The defendant (who is not a teacher, as some commenters assume) was hired by a University employee known to him and widely understood to be a friend of his, for a temporary/casual job to do "research" into mortgage fraud. The defendant does not have a college degree. The defendant had just been fired from a staff position at a local neighborhood association when he hit a board member in the face, when that board member asked for financial records. (At this point, $80,000 appear to be unaccounted for.)

3) My question for the jury:"If someone committed mortgage fraud against you, and then your local public institution uses taxpayer dollars to hire that person to do you the great service of "researching" mortgage fraud in your neighborhood,do you feel that it is your duty to remain completely silent on the matter, and that if you question that public institution about their judgment in hiring this person, then you should be bankrupted?" The jury said, "Yes, that is exactly what we believe."

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the principle that "Truth is an affirmative defense to libel?"

Works as designed

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not help a discussion of a serious issue to portray it as something it isn't. First, there was no "fine." This was a private lawsuit by one individual against another decided by a jury in the ordinary course. The jury awarded damages to compensate the plaintiff for his injury. Second, this was not government action, as some comments claim. Plaintiff was fired from his state university job, allegedly due to the blog entry. There is nothing in any article asserting that the state was trying to suppress the blog. On the contrary, the whole case is based on the state using its contents. Third, the actual decision in the case seems to have had nothing to do with whether a blog is journalism or whether a blog is entitled to first amendment protection. Granted, lawyers in the case apparently argued these issues, but the judge properly ruled that that plaintiff was a public figure, and that under the New York Times doctrine, the defendant could only be liable for defamation if he made his statements with actual malice, defined as knowingly false or made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. This case may have been wrongly decided, but it was not an outrage. The jury may have reached the wrong decision, but that happens all the time. If we are going to let juries decide cases, they will sometimes err. If the judge stated the law incorrectly in his instructions, the appellate courts should reverse. It is a shame to have someone cry wolf with this case.

Who's the troll here?

[Kosi]

Since when does telling the truth about a case of fraud fall under "bullying"?

Moral of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find something you're bad at or have done illegally in the past.

Find a job doing that.

Wait for a blogger to out you and get you fired.

...

Profit!

I've sort of been there

[Andy Smith]

Years ago I wrote a piece on my blog about how the owner of a popular web site had defrauded lots of his visitors out of thousands of dollars. It was common knowledge amongst insiders, and the blog post was backed up by copies of documents that proved the fraud.

Truth and proof didn't matter. The fraudster posted a personal attack, spread my email address around, I got hundred of vicious emails from his fans, and my daily spam count shot up to over a thousand per day which continues even now. He kept the money, and is still celebrated as siomething of an internet hero.

Re:I've sort of been there

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you may have had an ulterior motive, what given the URL in your sig an' all. Just sayin'.

As an example

[Sycraft-fu]

Suppose that when you were young but still an adult in a time of bad judgment you stole a car for a joy ride. You got caught, were genuinely remorseful, plead guilty, served your sentence, and went on to live a good life and have your rights fully restored. It 20 years later, and that incident is long behind you. You've never stolen again, never committed another crime.

You work as a security guard for a bank. They are aware of your conviction though a background check, but see no problem with it. It was a long time ago, etc, etc. However one of your enemies becomes aware of this fact so he starts a campaign against you. He starts putting up signs, a website, and so on talking about how the given bank hires thieves, showing your picture. The bank has no choice to dismiss you because of the bad publicity.

Now, nothing he said was false, you did in fact steal at one time, however should that one act mark you for the rest of your life? Should he be able to use it to harm you?

If not then you see why a law like this exists.

If for some reason you do think that should mark you forever then let me ask you have you ever pirated any software, music, or movies? How about accessed a computer without permission, even if it was due to a weak password or unpatched hole? Those are crimes, should the be chosen to be prosecuted as such. That you weren't caught is of no relevance. Unless you feel such a thing should mark you for life, then reconsider.

Re:As an example

[russotto]

If for some reason you do think that should mark you forever then let me ask you have you ever pirated any software, music, or movies? How about accessed a computer without permission, even if it was due to a weak password or unpatched hole? Those are crimes, should the be chosen to be prosecuted as such. That you weren't caught is of no relevance. Unless you feel such a thing should mark you for life, then reconsider.

My desire not to have my dark hacker past* follow me does not override other people's first amendment rights to make true statements about it.

*Ahh, who am I kidding. If I really had a dark hacker past, I'd brag about it and have business cards printed up with "Dark Hacker, Ret." on them

Re:As an example

[mywhitewolf]

If for some reason you do think that should mark you forever then let me ask you have you ever pirated any software, music, or movies? How about accessed a computer without permission, even if it was due to a weak password or unpatched hole? Those are crimes, should the be chosen to be prosecuted as such. That you weren't caught is of no relevance. Unless you feel such a thing should mark you for life, then reconsider.

first off.. good, that means more jobs for honest people who don't need to carjack for fun.

If i get fired because of PR for the company through no action i performed during my employment (especially if the bank knew about it), then I'd expect a nice hand out from the company, If I didn't receive one I'd sue the company that fired me for unfair dismissal. If my history means i shouldn't have been hired in the first place, then it would need to be dictated in the contract for me to have no grounds for unfair dismissal. if its not in the policy then why wouldn't i be able to sue for the knee jerk reaction?

However you're essentially defending a conscious decision to break the law and put yourself above others in which there are real consequences for the victim, but its unfair if your poor decisions affect the rest of your life? when a poor decision like "i can make that light" can kill someone else or drastically effect the rest of their life, why should we defend people who don't wish to be persecuted because of past conscious decision to do something bad?

also, your argument is flawed. the banks(at least in my country) don't hire anyone with a criminal history. so regardless if some one has a bone to pick with you, you won't be working for the bank anyway.

When did the internet become so serious? i was brought up with a great distrust of any information on the internet. Everything on the web was considered a lie unless verified, i grew up with goatse traps behind every link and trolling was never a form of "bullying". now everything i post has to be safe for a 4 year old to browse because someone might take something i said on the internet seriously.

Re:As an example

[gknoy]

good, that means more jobs for honest people who don't need to carjack for fun.

His point was, the hypothetical person had reformed: they no longer carjacked, and had served their sentence. The sentence (jail time, etc) is the appropriate punishment for such crimes. Getting fired 30 years later, after you already agree with everyone else that stealing stuff is both stupid and wrong, is NOT an appropriate punishment.

Re:As an example

[Grapplebeam]

What? That's how the current system works. Why do you think we have so many repeat offenders? It's because the prison industry is built to bring those people right back in. So people being marked for life because of an earlier crime happens all the time. And I thought you still had to mention you were once a criminal on your resume even if you were declared innocent later. So yes, bringing up the past is standard practice.

Re:As an example

[Shikaku]

And yet sex offenders never become reformed...

Re:As an example

[Maximum Prophet]

On the other hand if you do cocaine, and have several DUIs, you can be elected President...

Re:As an example

[Dan541]

People are entitled to know the truth about your criminal behaviour. Whether you like it or not.

Re:As an example

[Noughmad]

Then sue the employer that fired you, not the messenger.

Re:As an example

[gknoy]

I'm not sure I agree. Sure, I'd LIKE to know that a potential associate/coworker/babysitter had been convicted or something, and I imagine it's beneficial to the employer to be able to look for that. However, it seems like it basically counters the idea that a criminal can reform. If people don't feel like they have a chance to reform, to repent their mistakes and live life better (rather than being permanently branded, virtually or not, with their past mistakes), what incentive do they have to do so?

I'd prefer the idea that an ex-carjacker can turn their life around and be a force for good in their community. I realize it's idealistic, but there's NO chance of that happening if we (society, etc) don't let them move on once their court-mandated punishment is done. I believe that's excessive punishment.

poor choice by the defendant

[binaryseraph]

He should have have chosen a judge, not a jury. My guess is a very different outcome would have come from a judge as opposed to a sympathetic Jury to someone losing their job. I hope his appeal wins in either case.

It figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says crime doesn't pay.

Actually as another poster noted that can matter

[Sycraft-fu]

Under the law he was sued it matters if you were malicious about things. If you go after someone maliciously to try and cause them harm, and succeed in doing so, then you can be on the hook.

Well how does one determine if it was malicious? Through context, tone, that kind of thing. So if you publish something that is true but not flattering, but do so in a neutral manner and do it as something to inform or bring attention to a situation then you are probably fine.

Like in this case if the researcher says "Here's my research on mortgage fraud," and you say "Well please do note that this researcher was actually involved in a fraudulent mortgage and here's the details." Ok everything is probably good. A jury probably finds that nothing was done wrong. If he gets

However if you are hostile about it, if you go after the guy repeatedly, then maybe the jury finds that you were doing it for malicious and unfair reasons and you get in trouble.

We're the ones to blame...

[argStyopa]

"The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress. "

Granted, much of what a jury does is based on legal instructions given by a judge, but this is the system by which we are faced with the judgements of our peers - who are apparently in favor of cashing in as much as possible.

Have you ever seen the sorts of people that can't avoid jury duty? Pretty much invariably NOT the ones you'd like deciding your case on the merits.

Jury Nullification

[Paul Fernhout]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://fija.org/category/jury-nullification/
"This appears to be an intimidation tactic by a bully issued under color of law to circumvent the First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. While it may be more convenient for the court to have a jury that is easily steered by orders from the bench and selective filtering of the information it is permitted access to, it is NOT the purpose of a jury merely to rubber stamp the decision it is led to by the government. Were this the case, a jury would not be needed at all.
    Rather, it is the primary function of the independent juror to protect his or her fellow citizens- both the defendant and the rest of us who will be affected by the outcome of the case and the legal precedent it will set- from abuse by government. As the only people (aside from the defendant) involved in the court proceedings who are not making a living by perpetuating the system as dictated by government officials, jurors have not only a right, but a responsibility, to act independently- to think for themselves, to consult their consciences in deliberations, to judging the fairness and applicability of the law as well as the facts of the case , and to deliver justice when rendering a verdict."

Of course, everything can be misused, as jury nullification was to prop up racism in past decade...

Re:Jury Nullification

[sjames]

That was one supporting reason for my ethical decision not to take that oath.

The primary was that it is my moral/ethical responsibility to have no part in an act of injustice. Were I to render a guilty verdict knowing that the defendant will be unfairly sentenced (including being sentenced at all for something that should be legal) then I am responsible for that injustice.

From another point of view

[mmj638]

The summary really approaches this from a certain point of view.

Let's look at it from a different point of view ...

1. University hires a researcher who has done something in the past which would make him look bad, but is not technically illegal. The researcher has technically never committed any crime, just gotten involved with some bad people at one stage.
2. Blogger starts a campaign of negative publicity against the researcher focused on this aspect of his history. Everything said is true, but is inflammatory and of a nature intended to defame the researcher.
3. The university, for all we know, may even know about the researcher's controversial past already and be cool with it. Either way, the university finds it increasingly difficult to support the researcher in the face of this negative publicity, and eventually lets go of him in order to save face.
4. The researcher sues not for libel, because all the statements made about him were true, but for the running of a negative campaign about him which eventually lead to him losing his job and reputation.

A lot of people have something in their past that makes them look bad, but which is not actually illegal. If someone starts a negative campaign about you based on something like this, and it ends up with you losing your reputation or job, who is in the wrong? In this case, 12 jurors thought it was the blogger.

Re:From another point of view

[atomic-penguin]

Don't know the employment law in Minnesota, but depending on how faculty/staff are classified (either state, or for-profit research division of the Uni.), I would think that the University would be liable for unfair termination. That is if Jerry Moore was not guilty of some legal or ethical breach of conduct, the University would be liable for unfair termination of a classified state employee without due process (hearing his side of the story). On the other hand, if he was an at-will research division employee then any perceived ethical breach could legally lead to a quick termination, and he doesn't even have to be guilty of any misconduct.

There is an off-hand comment in the story about the Westboro Baptist Church, and while that is a shallow comparison for the blogger in question, it does bring up a good point. We let those scumbags get away with their "protests" at military funerals in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does extend to the press when the reporting is based in fact, and is not libelous. Its a tiny bit hypocritical to not extend the same courtesy to a blogger, even if the blogger in question is just as much a scumbag. Briefly perusing his blog, he does seem to have a bone to pick with this guy. However, if you start putting conditions on freedoms, where do you justifiably stop?

I agree with you on two points, however. If the University fired Jerry Moore merely to save face (rather than some breach of ethical conduct prohibited by his employment contract) then that is wrong. In my opinion, that is the University's liability not the blogger in question. Also, 12 jurors agreed on this and anybody now reading this, only has some of the facts. Without having all the facts, I would like to place some confidence in a jury. Despite all the faults of the justice system, jury trials are one of the most direct ways to participate in government and actually test the law, more so than voting for representatives.

Re:From another point of view

[mmj638]

Also, 12 jurors agreed on this and anybody now reading this, only has some of the facts.

Absolutely right, and this is why this whole thing, including the reason for the University terminating the researcher's contract, is purely speculation. Interesting and throught-provoking speculation though :)

Re:From another point of view

[Overzeetop]

This is why you should always be careful of conflicts of interest. Those in professional positions are made aware by their professional licensure of the dangers of conflicts - even apparent conflicts. This isn't some poor schmoe - he's a professor intimately aware of the internal workings of the mortgage market. This is the kind of guy who needed to say, "hey, this is wrong; this is fraudulent" but instead partook in the scheme for personal financial benefit.

The blogger may be an asshole, but the prof set himself up.

Re:From another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say what's even more relevant to this particular case is that the researcher was researching something that he himself had been involved with in the past. So the question of his impartiality was pertinent. It's possible the university didn't know of this potential conflict of interest, which the researcher should have ethically reported before starting the study. Once the university knew of the conflict of interest, they rightly released the researcher. So in essence, he's suing the blogger for revealing what he himself should have revealed before taking on the work.

It reminds me of the Ward Churchill case at the U of Colorado, Boulder. After Churchill wrote his obnoxious essay about the "little Eichmanns" who got killed in the twin towers, an investigation revealed Churchill had employed unethical academic practices in the past. The U fired him, and he whined that they only fired him because of the essay, which lead to the investigation, which lead to the exposure of his bad behavior.

TL;DR: Both of these "academics" need to man up and admit to their own ethical violations.

Re:From another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was 7 jurors. (Economy measure several years ago.) Perhaps for felonies they still use 12.

Re:From another point of view

[SanityLapse]

A lot of people have something in their past that makes them look bad, but which is not actually illegal. If someone starts a negative campaign about you based on something like this, and it ends up with you losing your reputation or job, who is in the wrong?

Apologies if this is slightly off-topic, but why doesn't this apply to politics as well? I've seen campaign ads that are a dozen times worse than anything this guy blogged about, yet smear campaigns are the status quo and I don't see anybody getting sued over that. I'm not going to comment on whether the law itself is right or wrong, but it does bother me that it doesn't appear to be applied uniformly.

Re:From another point of view

[mmj638]

I think that if you hold a public office you don't have so much of an "expectation of privacy".

I think it's the same for celebrities too, though there is still obviously a line to cross.

And I don't think this applies for private citizens who are thrust into the public eye through no fault of their own (victims of crime, lottery winners, etc), the usual rules about expectation of privacy would apply.

Re:From another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. This does make sense actually. Though I'm pro defendant here.

I think a lot needs to be read into the context in which the article was posted. Especially into the nature of the crime done by the plaintiff. In my opinion, if the plaintiffs mortgage fraud was big enough to justify the attack by the defendant, then the defendant is on morally higher ground and may be acquitted, even if he had the intention of "bringing down" the prof. In my view, the prof is challenging the defendants crime versus his own. The jury has to decide which is worse. Somehow, I feel that the profs was worse, considering his audacity to sue someone for his own mistake, it's not hard to quickly get an idea about the kind of person he is.

Also, the said event occurred in america where liberties are a bit tied down and people are strongly right leaning, but in general, the eastern world would probably lean quite strongly towards my view.

This also raises questions on what is morally better and who the hell has the authority to make such decisions. The law is the moral scale blah blah. The whole point of having a jury is to interpret human actions in terms of their morality and the conditions surrounding the issue and not to interpret just the law. The law is a piece of shit, and judging everything based on it alone is not going to fix issues.

Re:From another point of view

[Hognoxious]

Blogger starts a campaign of negative publicity against

the researcher focused on this aspect of his history. Everything said is true, but is inflammatory and of a nature intended to defame the researcher.

Sigh. If it's true it's not defamatory.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Adefamation&btnG=Search

You'll see the word "false" and its derivatives quite a lot if you follow the link.

(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, TOR exit nodes are toxic. I ran a fully open tor exit node for 24 hours and got 4 C&D's for my trouble. You need a full time lawyer, or a lot of time spent tuning which traffic you relay. :-/

Re:(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[Geminii]

Or arrange things so that it's not obvious who runs the exit node, how to contact you, or even if you're in a particular country.

Re:(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[bill_mcgonigle]

Or arrange things so that it's not obvious who runs the exit node, how to contact you, or even if you're in a particular country.

IP addresses are currently identifiable to location. Computers need to exist in meatspace, plugged into power. As long as there's a plug to pull, and there's a legal system, C&D's will exist and stop exit nodes from all but the powerful (there's a good intelligence reason for US TLA's running exit nodes).

I'm not aware of anybody who's working on changing that. Certainly not in IPv6.

Re:(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[Geminii]

True, but there's nothing stopping an end node from having an IP address sourced in a jurisdiction which tends to look on American C&D orders with little more than amusement. Even if the contents of the host on that IP were set up, arranged, and administered remotely by an American.

It should also be possible, with sufficient initial setup, to have a legal system supporting a business system supporting a computer system which all allowed fairly rapid changes of situation, including which entity or chain of entities was legally responsible for a particular service.

Stross's Manfred Macx sets up something similar in _Accelerando_, such that by the time any legal request comes to him as CEO or owner of a chain of micro-companies which owns or runs something the authorities have an interest in, he's no longer technically the CEO or owner of the company in the original request, and can truthfully say that he has no idea who is, as the companies are a cloud/swarm of virtual legal entities which own and are owned by each other in an ever-changing sea of randomness.

Of course, that kind of arrangement requires that ownership and transference of ownership of such entities be able to be accomplished extremely quickly, without human intervention, and presumably at extremely minimal cost.

Re:(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[bill_mcgonigle]

True, but there's nothing stopping an end node from having an IP address sourced in a jurisdiction which tends to look on American C&D orders with little more than amusement. Even if the contents of the host on that IP were set up, arranged, and administered remotely by an American.

That's a good point - it ought to be possible to augment Tor to support exit preferences by jurisdiction, whether that be avoiding Iran, China, or USA.

Re:(open) Tor exit nodes are toxic

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I have a Swedish IP address whenever I want to use it. Not bad for someone masturbating in Memphis, which is not even within 500 miles of my actual home.

The fun of civil trials

[witherstaff]

This whole story doesn't surprise me, and yes - jurors can be the bottom of the barrel. Civil cases don't seem to need facts at all, just opinion to give out large cash awards.

A number of decades ago I sat through a civil case decided by jury on damages caused by a son quitting his job at his parent's company. There had be no contracts involved, son just got fed up and quit. The jury consisted of 2 employed people and everyone else was not employed. 1 guy looked like he hadn't bathed in ages and nodded off quite a bit. The trial lasted a week, verdict was for 40k. We were told that the 2 employed wants 0, a few women wanted 100 because how dare a son do that, and they settled on 40 to just get it over with.

Retrial would have cost at least as much as verdict, and next jury could have found for more so those on trial ate it and moved on. Since then I've decided I won't skip out of jury duty if called since they need some smart people on them!

Re:The fun of civil trials

[Anonymous Coward]

Real moral of the story is never work around family. When you turn 18, get the hell out before you get fucked, if not before then.

I learned the hard way what trusting people who may as well be total stranger will lead to.

Accepting -> Allowing

[LongearedBat]

In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?

Okay, so the blogger could have been more tactful by reporting it to authorities instead of blogging about it. But still, the frauster needs to man up and take the consequences for his own actions. It's going to get out anyway, one way or another.

This business of protecting perpetrators is akin to tacitly accepting criminal behaviour. Of course, accepting != allowing, but over time on a nationwide level it alters a nations culture and brings the two concepts closer.

Sounds like Google

[thisisauniqueid]

Google also got in major trouble for telling the truth in the Wifi debacle. Why do we disincentivize honesty, and what will happen if this pattern of punishment for honesty is extrapolated into the future?

Re:Sounds like Google

[erroneus]

I can't say why people prefer to hide the truth when it's awkward, uncomfortable or even painful. Many people see the emotional results of facts alone and ignore the facts themselves. "I don't like that truth -- get me something that makes me feel good instead" sounds an awful lot like "I don't like the results of the data you collected. Collect some more data that reflects my point of view."

For the love of anything you hold dear, stop saying "inventivize!" This has got to be the worst word ever made popular by the news. The root word is incent. Transitive verb. The noun form is "incentive." To properly make "incentive" into a trasitive verb, you REMOVE the "-ive" not add "-ize" to it.

Were I to make to make "incentivize" into a noun by saying "incentivizive" would you feel that is appropriate? And then the next thing you know, we have "incentiviziviziving" all over the place.

Respect your language. Language is the encoding of your thoughts. For your thoughts to be clear, your language must be clear.

I hope I have disencouragivized you from abusing the language you speak.

Re:Sounds like Google

[thisisauniqueid]

Er, your username 'erroneus' is quite apt because (1) erroneous is misspelled, and (2) I didn't use either "inVentivize" or "incentivizive" in my post. And both incent and incentivize exist in the dictionary as verbs, but incentivize is in more common usage, and the masses, fortunately or unfortunately, decide the future of language, because language is a living thing.

"Incentivize" is a neologism so it is still not recognized by many spelling checkers, but it clearly does exist in the dictionary -- even the OED. However something you may not know is that the word "incent" is also a neologism, and it appeared nine years after the word "incentivize" (1977 vs. 1968 respectively).

I can also point you to a modern source that I think justifies the usage: Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize Foundation is famous for saying, "You get what you incentivize". Saying "You get what you incent" just wouldn't sound right -- and almost nobody would understand what was actually meant by that, because almost nobody in recent mainstream media/press/culture actually uses the word "incent"...

Who writes these headlines?

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't fined. It was a civil judgment.

Civics people. Civics!

They're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The jury made an error, plain and simple. Appeal and try again. Pretty unsophisticated error correction scheme, but society hopefully has many years to improve upon it.

@Johnny Northside: You need to counter-sue for a large sum on several claims. Up the ante. As things stands, he stands to gain a lot, lose little, while you stand to lose a lot, gain little.

Re:They're wrong

[TRRosen]

you can't appeal a jury error. That's sort of the point of a jury.

And exactly what would JN counter sue for? Pretty much impossible to pull off a frivolous lawsuit claim after you actually lose in a jury trial.

There's a saying ...

[garry_g]

... in Germany (though I found some references of it also being a Chinese saying) that goes something like this:

If you are speaking the truth, you need a fast horse

Guess his horse wasn't fast enough ...

Don Allen was responsible and he settled

[erroneus]

This is a really interesting case.

This Don Allen was a co-defendant in this case initially. He settled out of court with the plaintiff. He was a co-defendant because HE was the one who took things too far with his letter to the plaintiff's employer and interfered with his employment. Keep in mind that this is the one charge that actually mattered... the one that resulted in the jury finding for the plaintiff.

I went to check out Don Allen's site to see where I might find where this meddler who caused all of this with his letter to the employer had reportedly cheered in support of the verdict against the remaining defendant... the defendant charged with the actions TAKEN BY DON ALLEN. Allen then goes on to say "It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals." Really Mr. Allen? Is that the position you are taking? Hoff was taking his position on the issues by using the plaintiff as an example. YOU are the one who attacked the individual and settled your case when you knew you were wrong. (You get points for knowing you were in the wrong, but you lost them when you turned hypocrite.) Taking responsibility for your actions is one thing, but assigning blame for your actions to someone else is quite another.

I could not read where Allen's site applauded the victory as reported in the original article. To do so would have meant reading racially slanted post after racially slanted post and I just couldn't stomach it after 4 pages of it. I get it -- he's in support of "the black cause." I'm okay with that. Defend the down-trodden and the unfortunate. (But only the ones who are black.) But be clear on this -- are you saying they are unfortunate because they are black? It would seem that's what is being expressed. It would also seem that "being white" is somehow an offense as well. I work with some highly skilled and successful black people who heartily disagree with Allen's apparent position that being black means being unfortunate. They learned and worked and succeed every day and I idolize their achievements. RACISM in support of "The Black Cause" is still RACISM Mr. Allen. It's all good to report on the facts. Just leave "because he was black" out of it the story because that is you drawing a conclusion as to the cause.

I am utterly disgusted with Don Allen in this case. He was solely responsible for the charge of "tortious interference" by contacting the plaintiff's employer, "attacking the individual" as he put it. Mr Allen settled and that's all well and good, but he also seems to have thrown the remaining defendant "under the bus" as part of the deal with the plaintiff. This smells of some really dirty dealing.

Facts

[TRRosen]

1. This is a civil case the first amendment has no play here. The first amendment gives you the right to speak it DOES NOT however protect you from the consequences of that speech. Fact is The first amendment protects your right to tell lies and make defamatory statements.

2. What was in question here is the bloggers intent. Was it to show light, protect public interests or to fuck with somebody he didn't like. The jury chose the third choice.

3. You have the right to say what you want but if you use that right not as a torch to bring light but a a torch to burn down the house, you are responsable.
Think of it this way. If you call a 13 year old girl dumb and ugly 100 times and she kills herself well it's ok is she was dumb and ugly right. you only told the truth.

4. In this case speech was used not as a tool for justice but as a weapon of anger.

Re:Accepting - Allowing

[Moses48]

In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?

In this case, the blogger wasn't reporting new information on a crime. He was defaming a person for being "involved" in a crime that had taken place and was already tried in the past. If you witnessed a murder, you might be said to be "involved" in the murder. I might then blog and hint at a more sinister involvement, but only ever state the facts. Is that ok? Even if I get you fired?

I'm not saying that the complainant didn't have nefarious "involvements" in the aforementioned crime. But we don't know that, and he wasn't the one sentenced for the crimes.

Now the question is again: is it ok to state the truth and keep mud slinging? (personally I like the somewhat ambiguous law that lets the jury decide. They have the time to dedicate to seeing both sides and finding the truth.)

Re:Accepting - Allowing

[TRRosen]

In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?

NO. Not unless your a police officer or agent of the court or such. Private citizens are not required to report any crime.

There was no crime here. The plaintiff was said to be involved with a fraudulent mortgage not that he committed the fraud. The person responsible was tried and convicted. This was already public knowledge.

There is no such obligation or compulsion

[fnj]

Yes, the judge may instruct the jury in the law, and then the jury has the enshrined right to say (figuratively) sorry, we don't care; stuff it. It's called "jury nullification." Learn it; love it. It's really too bad more citizens are not aware of their power, and it's really sad that many just don't care. In this case, I would have worked like fury in the jury room to nullify.

I can't do better than quote Wikipedia on this:

"Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case."

I would add that the jury does not have to rule "in light of the actual evidence" at all. It has the power to rule for ANY reason. The reason is between the jurors and their source of moral authority if any. No one has the right to question their motives or reasons. Not the judge, that's for double damn sure. He may categorically refuse to inform the jury of their true rights, but he has no authority to prevent them from finding out their rights and exercising them.

"Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy)."

Re:There is no such obligation or compulsion

[Unequivocal]

Good point and thanks for the correction. I'm still pretty sure it's unlawful to flout the legal instruction - but as you say if the law is "wrong" the jury can nullify. I was on a jury where someone was ignoring the law and the judge mentioned that they could go to jail for ignoring the law in this way. They weren't doing it for a "moral" reason or b/c they thought the law was wrong. They just didn't want to follow it, so they could shorten deliberation and go home early.

Re:There is no such obligation or compulsion

[Maximum Prophet]

The USA broke from England partially because the colonists wanted Jury Nullification. It's part of our founding principles. So, of course, the government is doing it's best to make sure it can't happen. Julian P. Heicklen was recently indicted for passing out pamphlets on New York courthouse steps. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?src=me

*Note. Passing out pamphlets is one way that our founding fathers started a revolution. So the government is doing its best to stop that too...

I'm sure they're just going to hold Mr. Heicklen as long as they can, rough him up, and release him. There's no way a real jury would convict him, unless they are gagged, ear-plugged, and blindfolded. (Or Blackmailed and paid off)

Re:Accepting - Allowing

[Anonymous Coward]

the blogger could have been more tactful by reporting it to authorities instead of blogging about it.

We're assuming he didn't go to the authorities. Perhaps he did report it to the authorities and found them doing nothing. Or perhaps he didn't, but has as much trust as I do in the authorities doing their job "because they're too busy fighting crime" which is rampant because they don't.

Apart from the fact that we don't really know what went on, there's the "he could have", "he should have". Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?
If this blogger had gone to the authorities *first* and (as I'd expect) nothing happened, what do you suppose he should have done next?
Shut his trap or blog about it?

This post is just nasty

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really, telling everybody the blogger lost his court case, letting the world know he was a loser. Its unkind and I hope he sues the original poster and slashdot for emotional distress and loss of reputation for $60,000!

Re:Accepting - Allowing

[erroneus]

Uh, no...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Skip forward to the part about "Knowledge of..."

Re:Accepting - Allowing

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?

This is a common myth, but no, it's not actually. Policemen are legally required to act - they cannot say "oh, there's a crime going on there, but I'm gonna ignore it", for obvious reasons. But for everyone else, there is no legal requirement to do anything.

has anyone read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone take the time to read the article.
The reason the judge fined the guy was not the original comments.
The issue is not about the truth being a defense against libel or not.
The reason the judge agreed to the fine, was the fact that afterwards,
the blogger proudly proclaimed that he got the guy fired. I don't know if I
agree that this blogger should be fined for this, but I do agree that displaying
such distasteful pride in getting someone fired does make the situation more
complicated.

Truth can Deceive

[Cinnamon Beige]

This entire post was written deceptively, since it all but explicitly says that the suit was for libel.

Now we are to where details that are essential--did the blogger know the person? were there extenuating circumstances?--which are...not appearing on this site, apparently. Extenuating circumstances here would be along the lines of "My 'friends' thoughtfully neglected to inform me the car was stolen when they picked me up." You'd still be involved in a car theft, but your level of culpability goes down (just remember, 'friends' who do that aren't friends)...

Now, imagine that one of these (hopefully now-former) 'friends' is unhappy with you, because you ought to have been simply amused by their wacky hijinks & you chose to turn on them because you have this far-right notion that people have a right to keep their property... Let's say he goes and tells your employer, who has been quite clear about needing employees whose noses are clean, that you were involved in a car theft. Since he did this without mentioning that your involvement consisted of, well, Being In A Stolen Car...you were fired.

This would not constitute libel, at least under the most conservative definition of libel: you were. (In fact, theoretically it could be true even if your involvement was purely as the car's owner.) However, the truth was conveyed in a malicious and--more importantly--deceptive manner.

It is, however, malicious misconstruing of the situation, and if he knows that your employer will consider the version told you as a reason to fire you...

Disclaimer: This is purely intended to provide an example of the law and the reasoning behind it. The author of this post does not know (nor particularly care) about the facts of the case that inspired this gem of bad reporting on /.--which is also an example of deceptive, yet truthful, recounting of events. The author of this post, in fact, is inclined to suspect that either judge was yet another example of why it needs to be less impossible to displace bad judges, or that the law itself was poorly written...and thus, as the Supreme Court once put it, ought to be enforced so it will be so obvious even a politician cannot fail to notice it's a bad law.

Re:Truth can Deceive

[mysidia]

However, the truth was conveyed in a malicious and--more importantly--deceptive manner.
It is, however, malicious misconstruing of the situation

No. Truth cannot deceive. Intentionally distorted versions, explanations, or selected renderings of a portion of the Truth can deceive. Explanations of the Truth can deceive.

It is still a malicious lie (and not the truth) to say just that he was involved in car theft.

That's no different than going to a federal prison to visit an inmate and talk with them. And then having someone who saw you maliciously write a letter to your employer a few years later saying that you were in [the] jail.

A "half truth" is still a lie. Chances are, if you try to defend yourself from libel claiming such a half truth is somehow "true", you will find yourself paying the plaintiff.

Re:Truth can Deceive

[Cinnamon Beige]

That's no different than going to a federal prison to visit an inmate and talk with them. And then having someone who saw you maliciously write a letter to your employer a few years later saying that you were in [the] jail.

No, it's not. The example given is of being--albeit innocently--involved in an actual crime. The fact that you didn't know your supposed friends were given to stealing cars is not particularly relevant to the law, in large part because it's an easy claim to make. The assumption is that you acted sensibly afterwards, or at least had a sensible attorney whose advice you took, and opted to testify against them so the least sh*t hits you.

Not only that, the bottom line in your example is that you were inside the jail--which may make it an even purer example of what the original intent of the law was to protect against. If the letter simply states that the author saw you inside the jail, the statement is, in and of itself, entirely true. It's not even a half-truth, if the person really did see you there and is careful to stick to the literal truth. The court is not expected to be telepathic, nor is it supposed to assume that malice was intended.

Perhaps more importantly, you seem to have slander mixed up with libel.

Truth?

[DarthVain]

The guy accused another of Fraud, with no proof, and the other was at the time not convinced of any fraud.

As a result of that accusation, he lost his job.

He sued the jerk for defamation, and won. Legitimately so.

I do not see the issue here. You can't just go around saying whatever you please and not expect repercussions regardless of "free speech". Here is an incident that regardless of if the actually facts are "true" they were not proven, not at least in a court of law, and a guy lost his livelihood because of it. He then sued and won because of that. This is how it is supposed to work. I would also be suing the university who fired him without just cause, based on the unsubstantiated claims of a researcher who posted his "findings" on the internet.

Mortgage fraud researcher silenced by Banksters

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what the title should have been.

So... Who better to research mortgage fraud than a guy who was sucked into the mess and now wishes to expose the fraud? So we have an obnoxious asshole blogger who successfully silences such research. Let's examine Johny Northside's tax returns and income, and figure out how he actually makes a living before you judge which side of this argument is more evil.

I don't think the title says it all.

[hey!]

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this is a defamation case, but really the verdict was that Mr. Hoff had invaded Mr. Moore's *privacy* by committing "tortious interference". In other words he maliciously stuck his nose into Mr. Jordan's business. Let's take a critical look at this notion that freedom of speech justifies any communication that is true, and then let's look at *this* case.

Freedom of speech isn't the only freedom we cherish. We also cherish privacy. In a sense these rights emerge from a deeper, more fundamental right: the right to conduct your affairs without interference. In practice these rights often come into conflict unless we define them fairly carefully. Tortious interference is a perfect vehicle to study this conflict, because it is free of extraneous detail. It's easy to categorically put libel or fraud outside the pale of free speech because they are malicious and false. From a utilitarian perspective false, malicious speech serves no positive function in society. From an ethical perspective that stresses duties and rights, nobody has a right to spread malicious lies. But tortious interference is interesting because it can involve something that plays an important positive role in society: bringing unwelcome truths to someone's attention.

Is it even possible to tell the truth in a way that violates somebody's rights? I think so. Extortion can involve true allegations. If it were your right to spread any truthful fact in your possession, then why shouldn't extortion be legal? I could enter into a contract with you right now in which I gave you $10 in exchange for your never saying anything bad about my Slashdot posts. You're bartering away your right to free speech in that case, so why not allow extortionists to do the same thing? Because extortionists make their victim pay for something he by rights should enjoy for free: non-interference in his personal affairs.

Suppose your ex-girlfriend's boss works for a boss who is a conservative Christian. You want to get her fired, so you call her boss up and tell him that she had an abortion. If you like you can flip around the political affiliations and make the victim a conservative Christian and her boss a pro-choice activist. In either case her job is none of your business and if you use your knowledge of the truth to get her fired, you're violating her rights.

Whether Mr. Moore was wronged by Mr. Hoff boils down to two questions. (1) Did Mr. Hoff actually take steps with the intention of getting Mr. Moore fired and (2) was Mr. Moore's employment any of Mr. Hoff's business? I actually think Mr. Hoff didn't engineer Mr. Moore's firing. Mr. Moore was a well known public figure whose career Mr. Hoff had followed and discussed publicly. He remained a public figure, and Mr. Hoff continued to discuss his career, albeit disparagingly. That got to the ears of Mr. Moore's employers and they fired him. Mr. Hoff cheered this development and took credit for it, but that's not quite the same as taking credit for *engineering* the dismissal.

If that's so, we don't even get to the really interesting question: did Mr. Hoff have any right to get Mr. Moore fired. Even though U of Mn is a public institution, I don't think that makes everybody who works there "fair game". Nor is every former public figure fair game. I think Mr. Hoff would have to have some rational purpose in getting Mr. Moore fired, such as Mr. Moore being in a position to gain improper personal benefits (given his involvement with questionable characters), or even Mr. Moore having substantial power to influence policy in ways that Mr. Hoff didn't like. I don't think either of those are the case here, so *if* Mr. Hoff engineered Mr. Moore's dismissal, he'd be sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. If Mr. Moore lost his job because of this employer's reaction to Mr. Hoff's unflattering discussion, but it wasn't Hoff's *intent* to get Moore fired, then Hoff is off the hook, even if he danced for joy at the news.

If there is any clear wro

there ya go

[slick7]

No good deed goes unpunished and no fuckup goes unrewarded, Ya gotta fuckup to move up.

Help him

[Anonymous Coward]

You can Donate to help him keep the First Amendment rights alive and well.

http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/