Slashdot Mirror
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."
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]?
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.
>>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.