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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

[hedwards]

No you don't. Liar.

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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Omnifarious]

And the laws that allowed the suit to proceed.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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 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

[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

[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: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: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.

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: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: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.

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

[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.

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: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: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: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: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?

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...."

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:"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.

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

[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.

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.

(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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.