I blogged about the Johnny Northside case (Moore v. Hoff) when the verdict came down, but there’s now a moderately detailed trial court opinion refusing to set the verdict aside. Here’s an excerpt from a Minneapolis Star-Tribune article about this latest development:
The jury ruled last March that [John] Hoff’s scathing blog post amounted to actively interfering with [Jerry] Moore’s job at the U, even though Hoff’s statements were true when he linked Moore to high-profile mortgage fraud.
The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress….
Moore, former executive director of the Jordan Area Community Council, was hired in early 2009 at the U’s Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center to study mortgage foreclosures.
When Hoff found out about the hire, he wrote a post accusing Moore of being involved in a “high-profile fraudulent mortgage” that was one of several resulting in a 16-year prison sentence for former real estate agent Larry Maxwell. Moore was not charged in that case.
Hoff took partial credit for Moore’s firing in a later blog post, to which Moore responded with his suit.
As I wrote in March, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired. (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. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.
Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003). But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment.
But the trial court’s opinion doesn’t discuss either of these arguments, even though Hoff’s lawyer raised both in his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (I’m told that the arguments were indeed raised at trial, and thus haven’t been waived; and the judge’s opinion doesn’t mention them at all, even to say that they had been waived.) I’m told that an appeal is forthcoming, and I hope the decision is reversed on appeal. In any case, here’s the heart of the trial court opinion:
Plaintiff Jerry L. Moore[ brought suit] for defamation, interference with contractual relationships, and interference with prospective advantage against Defendant John Hoff. A jury trial was held … [and] the jury … returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s defamation claim, and in favor of Plaintiff on the remaining two claims. Specifically, the jury found Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s employment contract and interfered with Plaintiffs prospective employment advantage…. Defendant filed a notice of motion and motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial….
When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court must take into account all of the evidence in the case, view that evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict, and not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses…. [J]udgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 may only be granted “when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” …
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that Defendant intentionally interfered with his contractual rights by actively working to get Plaintiff fired from his position at the University of Minnesota by, among other things, contacting individuals at the University of Minnesota, making disparaging remarks about Plaintiff, and encouraging others to do the same. To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation….
[T]he Court heard direct testimony regarding Defendant’s active involvement in getting Plaintiff fired by contacting leaders at the University of Minnesota and threatening to launch a negative public relations campaign if Plaintiff remained in their employment. By way of example, Don Allen testified that he sent an email to the University of Minnesota, at Defendant’s behest, threatening negative publicity and lobbying to get Plaintiff fired. In addition to Mr. Allen’s direct testimony, the jury also heard circumstantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The Court heard testimony that Plaintiff was terminated from his position at the University of Minnesota one day after transmission of the email from Mr. Allen. Furthermore, during this same time period, Defendant acknowledged that it was his goal to get Plaintiff fired and that he was working “behind the scenes” to do so. After the fact, Defendant took personal responsibility for Plaintiff s termination and announced his ongoing, active involvement in the University’s actions. The direct evidence, combined with the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented, supports the jury’s verdict….
During the course of the trial, the jury was asked to consider whether a particular statement ["Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved in a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N."] was true or false for the purposes of assessing Plaintiffs defamation c1aim. The jury determined that the statement was not false. With his current motion, Defendant argues that the jury’s award in favor of Plaintiff on the tortious interference claims were premised solely upon the same statement that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. Defendant does not present any evidence in support of this argument, nor does the Court find it necessary to invade the province of the jury.
It is not the Court’s function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict. Instead, it is the Court’s responsibility to interpret the special verdict form “and harmonize the jury’s responses where possible.” Thus, the Court must sustain the verdict “on any reasonable theory of evidence.” By special verdict, the jury found Defendant’s statement was not false, but that his conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to an intentional interference with Plaintiff’s employment contract and prospective employment advantage….
Michael P says:
Is the implication of this post that the defendant did nothing else that would constitute tortious interference with contractual relations? The court’s ruling seems to be that the jury could have reasonably concluded that both (a) Hoff did something beyond informing the University of Moore’s “involvement” (whatever that was) in the mortgage fraud, and (b) those further actions were the basis of tortious interference.
Based on the quote from the ruling, the court seems to think that such a conclusion is reasonable given that Hoff said he was working “behind the scenes” and also that Hoff did not offer any evidence that Hoff’s truthful statement was the basis for the tortious interference claim.
August 30, 2011, 9:04 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Seems like that set of facts goes well beyond the import of the headline, “$60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired.” The headline doesn’t encompass the fairly clear component of public interest that the quoted facts introduce. That just makes the case outcome worse, of course—in this case. But my issue is with the way Eugene Volokh keeps returning to a first amendment fundamentalism in which truth gives license for anything.
I’ll say it again. With the internet, the norms of publishing have changed forever. On the internet, customary publishing restraints no longer exist. Some of those protected society and individuals against gratuitous damage flowing from pure-malice publishing. Volokh’s headline summarizes a far simpler, less justifiable case than the one it actually refers to. And that notional case is one where one person uses publishing to harm another simply because he wants to, and because he can—no public issue necessary. The evil in that is Shakespearian—Othello tells the tale.
Encouraging that will not make the world a better place, nor the internet a more respected forum. A changed world will require re-thinking legalistic ideals that previously served society admirably. With less restraint built into the publishing system, more restraint will have to be built into the law.
August 30, 2011, 9:35 pmOwen H says:
I also see threats from the defendant to cause harm to the employer if he didn’t get his way.
August 30, 2011, 9:38 pmBill Poser says:
Am I wrong in thinking that the common law tort of public disclosure of private facts, to which truth is not a defense, is still available in the US? If so, does it not provide a sufficient basis for dealing with the problems that Stephen Lathrop is concerned with?
August 30, 2011, 9:45 pmSteve2 says:
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Othello, and I was always pressed for time that semester so I skimmed it more than read it in the first place, but wasn’t Iago untruthful? I thought the whole tragedy was that Othello believed (and overreacted to) Iago’s deceit.
Either way, I prefer Volokh’s fundamentalism of anything-goes-as-long-as-it’s-true to your fundamentalism of “restraint” and “politeness” and “don’t hurt people’s precious feelings”.
August 30, 2011, 9:54 pmIspep Teid says:
I’m not so sure that I agree with you, but that’s an excellent argument summary.
August 30, 2011, 10:03 pmjoe says:
If one views the evidence in a way “most favorable to the jury verdict,” doesn’t that mean also assuming that the “behind the scenes” work played a role on the firing in question? If that is the case, I don’t see how the 1st amendment serves as a defense.
August 30, 2011, 10:08 pmJerry Moore-08/30/2011 | Douche of the Day says:
[...] The jury ruled last March that [John] Hoff’s scathing blog post amounted to actively interfering w… [...]
August 30, 2011, 11:04 pmInterested Observer says:
While truth is an absolute privelege for tortious interference with contract, it only applies to the actual statement. His conduct in general, would be considered for impropriety under the Restatement (Second) of Torts at section 767 (if applicable in the jurisdiction). It seems with the knowledge that the defendant had regarding the plaintiff that he was justified in his actions, however, a reasonable juror could likely be convinced otherwise.
August 31, 2011, 12:41 amSoronel Haetir says:
I don’t see how e-mails are not also protected by the 1st amendment. They are speech or writing just as much as a public blog post.
August 31, 2011, 12:46 amjoe says:
I assume that “behind the scenes” meant more than just the email in question. I also have not seen the particulars of the lobbying threat. If there is any way that one could reasonably think that the defendant did more than just send emails and blogging about (as the judge seems to think by inclusion of the “behind the scenes” reference and by pointing to circumstantial evidence to that effect), than the 1st amendment is not a defense.
August 31, 2011, 1:03 amAnon says:
I assume that “behind the scenes” meant more than just the email in question. I also have not seen the particulars of the lobbying threat. If there is any
way that one could reasonably think that the defendant did more than just send emails and blogging about (as the judge seems to think by inclusion of the
“behind the scenes” reference and by pointing to circumstantial evidence to that effect), than the 1st amendment is not a defense.
(Quote)
Petitioning the government or a private party is protected speech. You have a constitutional right to petition the government even if you know that your encouragement if acted upon would violate the rights of others, see the 9th circuit’s decision White v. Lee.
Speech doesn’t lose its protection because it is communicated in private.
If that were otherwise, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and Citizens For A Better Environment would have to be distinguished.
The boycotters in the NAACP case didn’t merely provide truthful information. They actively sought to interfere with the business of those breaking the boycott.
August 31, 2011, 1:37 amTruffle says:
The implication of the Raphael Golb trial seems to be that emails that are addressed to third parties, and that satirically mock a well-known academic department chair, are not protected by the First Amendment. They are a form of fraud, because the satire, by definition, constitutes a false and deceitful statement about oneself.
But this might be the case for blogs as well. If Mr. Golb had published his satires as a public blog post, the court could still have ruled, as it did, that the “truth is not a defense,” and the prosecutor could still have argued that Mr. Golb is a danger to society because he “knows how to use words to stir up dispute.”
Note: Ronald Kuby’s appeal brief argues that the entire Raphael Golb trial was actually a civil suit for defamation concealed under the “cloak” of a criminal prosecution. By ruling that the truth is not a defense, the court seems to have offered victims of third-party criticism (at least in the form of satirical emails) a good way around § 772(a) the Restatement of Torts.
August 31, 2011, 2:10 amFezzell says:
Not being American and not having studied American constitutional law (yet), I’m curious as to why the First Amendment’s protections extend to common law torts in a private dispute? The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law”, and not, “Everyone is entitled to/has a right to free speech” — the latter creating, in effect, a positive right of free speech, while the former is essentially a negative right restricting government from impeding free speech. On a plain reading of the text, I don’t see how a party in a private dispute can invoke constitutional protection.
The Supreme Court of Canada discusses at length in its decision Hill v Church of Scientology how the Canadian Charter of Rights (our Bill of Rights) does not constitutionally protect speech in private disputes, relying only on the common law and its evolution to come to a decision. They do so because s. 32 of the Charter restricts its application to the “Parliament and government of Canada” and the respective provincial governments and legislatures. Similarly, the First Amendment seems to restrict the government, not private persons, from using tortious liability suits to impede speech.
Your thoughts on why the First Amendment has come to be interpreted so broadly would be appreciated.
[EV says: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) has a good though brief functional explanation, which I think is correct: When courts impose civil liability based on a government-supplied rule of law, they are indeed restricting speech, even if the particular trigger for such liability is a privately filed lawsuit.
My Tort Liability, and the Original Meaning of the Freedom of Speech, Press, and Petition, 96 Iowa L. Rev. 249 (2009), also looks at the history, and finds that this conclusion has a long history: Since about 1800, American courts have viewed analogous state constitutional provisions as indeed applying to tort lawsuits.]
August 31, 2011, 7:22 amAdam S says:
A threat to reveal a truthful fact and then cause the University bad publicity should be protected by the 1A to the same extent the actual revelation of facts is.
Of course this raises the issue of blackmail, but I don’t see that he was demanding money or something of personal value to him.
Another fact in the defendant’s favor is that the employer is a state institution which makes a difference I see it directly analogous to threatening a public official to reveal that they had committed some previous indiscretion if they do not voluntarily step down from office. I would think that such speech is certainly protected
August 31, 2011, 8:37 amSoronel Haetir says:
I would also say that a plaintiff in a case like this needs to actually prove what unprotected acts were committed. It should not be enough to say we know he did all this protected stuff — it isn’t even in dispute — but we also suspect he did more and here’s why. Without proving what the unprotected acts were you run the risk that those acts were themselves actually protected and place the defendant in the position of having to prove a negative when the entire burden is supposed to be on the plaintiff. The protected acts need to not even enter into the analysis. They might be enough for a foundation to show that the defendant wanted some particular result but they can’t be used to show he actually accomplished that result.actually
August 31, 2011, 8:40 amAnderson says:
That’s a rather poor trial-court opinion, though hardly atypical of the genre.
The sticking point is the “without justification” element. Assuming that the defendant briefed this, it seems sloppy of the trial court not to proceed element by element — why else set them out?
August 31, 2011, 9:11 amGiant Frog says:
“Moore’s lawsuit [stated] that after he was fired from the Jordan Area Community Council in January 2009, he was hired at the [University of Minnesota Urban Outreach and Outreach/Engagement Center]” and then fired from there when UM got more information from Hoff, or, more likely, when it seemed that the information about a crooked employee would be available to the general public. The fact that they were both make-work AA jobs probably has something to do with the case, especially with why Moore got the UM job in the first place.
August 31, 2011, 9:24 amStephen Lathrop says:
You mischaracterize my fundamentalism. The core of it is that truth alone should be sufficient to protect any discussion, however vigorous, on a question touching the public interest, the public health, safety, or welfare, or the lives of the famous and notorious, or the life of anyone who actively seeks publicity. On questions touching on none of those, then perhaps it would be wise to guard a respect for privacy, regardless of truth, at least insofar as publishing is concerned.
But perhaps I should try to convey my concerns in another way. Why not live the life you advocate? Why not step out from behind that pseudonym of yours, and expose yourself to the hazards you say you prefer? And even if you don’t do that, aren’t there plenty of people who know you in real life, and who may choose to do to you on the web exactly the things you seek to avoid by using your pseudonym? They may even use pseudonyms of their own when they do it. It really does seem peculiar for people using false names to be continually preaching the redeeming virtues of truth.
Good luck to you, good luck to us all. We’re going to need it.
August 31, 2011, 9:30 amalkali says:
The short answer is that there’s a record here that we’re not seeing. It’s not a good use of a trial judge’s time to digest for an opinion what is already in the record. If the case goes up on appeal, the appellate court will have the benefit of the record.
August 31, 2011, 9:47 amEric Rasmusen says:
‘a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage” I hadn’t heard of that tort. I can think of a legit use (one of two bidders for a road contracts lies about the other one’s past quality of work) but it seems to cover everyday competition too.
I can’t download the court opinion, but two other things puzzle me:
1. Did the university really breach a contract with the plaintiff? It sounds as if the university just fired him for cause or he had no contract at all and the university exercised its right to stop using him. Can he really sue for breach? Isn’t that an element of tortious interference with contract? (that he COULD successfully sue for breach).
2. What happened at summary judgement motion time? Was the plaintiff claiming the defendant’s statements were false, and thus got past summary judgement? Or did the judge decide then that truth was irrelevant?
August 31, 2011, 10:07 amCalderon says:
Under this case, how many bloggers would John Yoo have been able to sue if Berkeley fired him?
Stephen Lathrop said:
Not sure if this is meant descriptively or prescriptively. Descriptively, it does not accurately describe how First Amendment law often has worked. At the same time that protections for political speech were increasing (less restraint from the law), political speech was becoming more radical in terms of promoting fundamental changes in the society. And to take a risque example, as pornography has become more hardcore over time the obscenity exception appears to be used less and less.
Prescriptively, not clear why people having more truthful information about others is a negative. Moreover, involvement with fraudulent mortgage seems like a public issue worth discussing — indeed, I’d have thought that those on the left of politics would desire such discussions.
August 31, 2011, 10:09 amAnderson says:
The short answer is that there’s a record here that we’re not seeing. It’s not a good use of a trial judge’s time to digest for an opinion what is already in the record.
That proves too much. Why write an opinion at all? (As indeed many trial judges do not.) Why not, in particular, address what is easily the most glaring issue re: the jury’s verdict?
August 31, 2011, 10:16 amcrypticguise says:
This just demonstrates why most people have negative impressions concerning lawyers (judges are just lawyers in black robes): too many words too little common sense.
Does it make any sense that you can be sued for telling the truth about another individuals past criminal involvement?
Even the commentary seems to give too much weight to “splitting legal tort hairs”. This all makes my hair hurt, and I have fewer than I used to
August 31, 2011, 10:18 amAD says:
So much for truth being an affirmative defense.
August 31, 2011, 10:18 amNoway says:
In sum, just because you tell the truth about someone, that should not protect you against them suing the @#$% out of you? Yeah, well, you really will have two worlds in that reality: one for protected people rich enough to hire lawyers who can then harass truth-tellers, and another world for those who cannnot afford them.
August 31, 2011, 10:24 amJohn says:
“But my issue is with the way Eugene Volokh keeps returning to a first amendment fundamentalism in which truth gives license for anything.”
If the truth is your issue, you are a scary, scary person.
August 31, 2011, 10:30 amHockey Bum says:
first amendment fundamentalism in which truth gives license for anything.
Wow. Talk about a loaded term. Seriously is there a reasonable argument that publishing publicly available truthful information should be a tort? If so I haven’t seen it in this thread. If there was another reason for the court’s decision it isn’t clearly articulated.
August 31, 2011, 10:42 amGreg Q says:
What you are arguing for is a world where the politically connected or powerful get to use the courts to shut up those who disagree with them. And where the connected get to get away with fraudulent behavior.
It is one of the great joys of the Internet that the connected have been losing that power. I guess it’s not surprising that those who benefited from that power want to keep it. Disgusting, but not surprising.
From the article:
She clearly doesn’t understand the First Amendment, and neither do you. It is good that a guy involved in mortgage fraud was fired from a position studying mortgages at a public University.
That kind of thing is why we have the First Amendment, so that people can tell unpopular and unpleasant truths without the government going after them.
August 31, 2011, 10:44 amBill C says:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
August 31, 2011, 10:48 amKen Arromdee says:
Once again, the statement that the emails are satire and the implication that nobody would think they are the truth, is an assertion by one side in the case, not a neutral description of it.
August 31, 2011, 11:27 amHans Bader says:
This ruling is a flagrant violation of Supreme Court rulings like NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) that make clear that otherwise protected speech does not lose its protection merely because the speech results in economic harm or interference with contractual relationships.
For example, citizens’ speech opposing a housing project likely to be inhabited by the disabled (recovering drug users) was protected against liability under the Fair Housing Act even if it had discriminatory economic “effects” by successfully encouraging local officials to block such housing projects. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000).
The right to criticize criminal wrongdoing is at the very core of the First Amendment. Wrongdoers do not have a right to be immune from the consequences of their past misconduct and criticism of that misconduct. Citizens are supposed be able to criticize government officials, including employees of state universities.
Speech is SUPPOSED to have effects. As the Supreme Court noted in Roth v. U.S. (1957), which was hardly a First Amendment “absolutist” decision, “The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Such changes include getting a bad person fired for wrongdoing, especially (but not solely) when the wrongdoing casts doubt on the bad person’s moral and ethical fitness for the job.
Allowing liability for speech that has effects on those it criticizes turns the First Amendment upside down, effectively giving truthful speech less protection than false speech, because truthful speech is more likely to lead a firing by a reasonable decisionmaker concerned with making accurate decisions than is false speech. Essentially, it revives the pernicious “the greater the truth, the greater the libel” school of thought rejected in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
August 31, 2011, 11:31 amscott says:
Isn’t the use of the pseudonym the exact behavior one would expect from a poster who ascribes to this line of thinking? Doesn’t this poster exhibit an appreciation of the fact that he can be held accountable in other forums for actions he takes here? The fact that one believes he can/should be held legally accountable for telling the truth is not negated by the fact that he doesn’t want to be in this forum. It’s not peculiar, not even ironic…it’s perfectly logical.
August 31, 2011, 11:36 amLinus says:
Yes, ideally, people should be responsible for what they say. But that statement does not equal “the government should be the entity holding people responsible for what they say”. If this were a Venn diagram, then the sphere marked “truth” wouldn’t coincide with the government holding responsible (that fundamentalist First Amendment), it would with “the public” or “the community” or whatever.
For example, saying “you’re fat and ugly” to a fat and ugly person is true. And it’s also very rude. And I wouldn’t have a problem in the world if polite society chose to punish that rude person with shunning or harsh looks or whatever. But if the government does the punishing, well, I guess I’m a First Amendment fundamentalist. So, isn’t the problem here that some people aren’t satisfied with the punishments doled out by society, and they want the heavy hand of government holding the whip?
August 31, 2011, 11:37 amGreg Q says:
I use a pseudo
I use a pseudonym because America’s full of left-wing bigots who work hard to harm people for the “crime” of disagreeing with them, and I’m in a sufficiently weak position that I do not wish to face that harm. I use the same pseudonym everywhere, because I am happy with the opinions I hold, and am willing to carry my reputation with me on line.
Do I wish to be “outed”? No. Do I think it’s the job of the courts to prevent that “outing”? No.
August 31, 2011, 12:01 pmShelbyC says:
What’s wrong with this at all? If I would prefer to hire B over A when I’m ignorant of fact X, but would prefer to hire A over B when I know fact X, and C, motivated by a hatred of B, publishes fact X, so I fire B and hire A, why is that bad? How has that made the world a worse place? I’m better off, B’s better off, and A is worse off.
August 31, 2011, 12:12 pmAnderson says:
I use a pseudonym because America’s full of left-wing bigots who work hard to harm people for the “crime” of disagreeing with them
Funny, change “left” to “right” in that quote, and it’s *my* reason for using a pseudonym.
August 31, 2011, 12:15 pmAJK says:
I wouldn’t waste my time: it’s pretty obvious at this point that Truffle is Golb himself, or someone very close to him.
August 31, 2011, 12:24 pmHasdrubal says:
I see where you’re going with this. If truth is an absolute defense, you can run into a situation where a vindictive ex-girlfriend can make you effectively unemployable by buying a billboard outside every place that hires you saying “Don’t trust this man, he cheated on his taxes!” if you were a waiter and didn’t claim all of your tips at one point in time.
This does seem like a thorny issue since it would allow someone to ruin another person’s life regardless of whether or not they’re a public figure or have any political impact, leaving the victim with no legal recourse. But is there a way to write a rule that actually does defend the purely private from abuse while still protecting our ability to speak detrimental truth to power?
I’m tempted to think that the benefit of not protecting public figures from truthful assaults outweighs the harm likely caused by truthful assaults on non-public figures. Furthermore, individuals have the ability to limit the likelihood of such an attack; posting anonymously on the Internet being one of the strategies, not being an ass is another. Nothing is going to make you 100% safe, of course, but I still think the benefit likely outweighs the risk.
August 31, 2011, 12:35 pmScott says:
Without taking a side (in this comment) on the issue under discussion, I would like to disagree with this quote using a couple of other quotes:
August 31, 2011, 12:35 pmstan says:
Tortious interference doesn’t require a false statement. Suppose that a blogger with a big following threatened an employer: fire your employee or I will make life miserable for you. Does that pass muster as a tort claim, if the employee is fired?
Is it no longer a tort because the blogger’s communication of the threat also happens to include a true statement?
August 31, 2011, 12:43 pmGreg F says:
I too use a pseudonym for a number of reasons and don’t really care if other people do or don’t. What interests me is not their name but the quality of their arguments. Were not the Federalist papers published with a pseudonym?
August 31, 2011, 1:02 pmHans Bader says:
I don’t care if some free-speech-hating court says that “tortious interference doesn’t require a false statement,” because state tort law is subject to First Amendment limits (see NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.), and the federal courts say that the First Amendment DOES require a false statement, especially when the statement addresses a matter of public concern (if the only thing the speaker threatens to do to make life miserable” for the employer is to engage in future critical speech criticizing the employee who engaged in wrongdoing, and criticizing the employer for employing the employee who engaged in the misconduct, then it is indeed protected):
August 31, 2011, 1:03 pmstan says:
Hans,
Suppose that Mr. Big hates your guts because you broke up with his daughter. Every time you get a job, he goes to the employer and simply says that if they knew what was good for them, they’d fire you. Given his power and prominence, you always got fired.
Mr. Big is tortiously interfering. If he also mentions that you have bad manners or bad grades (and a jury agrees that your manners or grades are bad), that doesn’t shield him from the tort claim.
August 31, 2011, 1:17 pmShelbyC says:
Inapt analogy. Telling someone, give me $10,000 or I’ll tell your wife you cheated on her, isn’t protected even if the guy really cheated on his wife. However, telling the guy’s wife he cheated on her is protected.
August 31, 2011, 1:20 pmTruffle says:
Once again, I have carefully read the emails, the trial transcripts, and the list of 90 examples, and it seems obvious to me that the emails are a satire, exactly as the brief says.
At sentencing, the court itself said that the defendant’s “parody crossed the line.” During the trial, the court gave the jury no means or criteria to distinguish between satirical and non-satirical speech. The court rejected the proposed jury instructions on that point, and told the jury to ignore the First Amendment. If the statute doesn’t distinguish between protected and unprotected speech, then it’s unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
August 31, 2011, 1:20 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » EUGENE VOLOKH: $60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fi… says:
[...] VOLOKH: $60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired. “I’m told that an appeal is forthcoming, and I hope the decision is reversed on [...]
August 31, 2011, 1:36 pmWarren Bonesteel says:
So…tell the truth and get sued?
Great. Just great.
Lying has now been institutionalized…and is protected by law.
…and people can’t understand what’s happening to the land that they claim to love?
What? Are ya stupid? …or just nuts?
August 31, 2011, 1:40 pmBlue says:
UM is an organ of the State and the basic Constitutional right to petition the State for redress of grievance should be front-and-center in this case.
August 31, 2011, 1:43 pmJoe says:
I don’t understand how this is any different from a run-of-the-mill whistle blower case. Isn’t the purpose of whistle blowing to get a ne’er do well outta there? I thought whistle blowers had some kind of legal protection. But then I’m not a lawyer who can slice and dice the obvious in a hundred different ways.
August 31, 2011, 2:37 pmSid says:
I use a pseudonym because my witness protection handler won’t allow me to use my real name and most of the world believes I died August 16, 1977.
August 31, 2011, 2:48 pmstan says:
Shelby,
Exactly. Glad you are following along. Just because some of the statements might be protected speech does not mean a tort was not committed. The trial judge in this case has apparently ruled that the jury found that other actions of the defendant constituted the tortious conduct.
August 31, 2011, 3:45 pmkeeskennis says:
Socialists suck as does socialist Republics and it’s socialist laws.
August 31, 2011, 3:46 pmSykes Five says:
There’s a whole “sham petition” doctrine to deal with this.
August 31, 2011, 3:52 pmSykes Five says:
I would like to know if Professor Volokh has any thoughts on tortious interference generally. Most paradigmatic case involve a true statement (“I can give you a better deal!”) and rational economic conduct (taking the deal) that result in tort liability. Now there are exceptions for competition and, as stated here, a quite limited exception for truthful statements, but isn’t there something wrong with the whole tort? Yet it is a staple of modern commercial litigation–employment, too, but that’s another story.
August 31, 2011, 4:04 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Of course there is, and I outlined it above. Here it is again:
Couple that with some kind of truth-is-not-sufficient tort for invasion of privacy in cases where at least one of those conditions is not met, and you have a workable solution. But of course, if people wanted to they could massage to taste the conditions allowing a showing of truth to protect wide open publishing. I’m just suggesting it’s unwise to let truth protect everything, however malicious and publicly irrelevant.
That standard proposed above, by the way, isn’t something I just made up. Anyone familiar with libel law will recognize that something quite similar is an important part of the law in many jurisdictions, that it has not been difficult to make the distinctions implied, and that it has all worked pretty well for decades.
August 31, 2011, 4:18 pmSbard says:
This is basically what Dominick Dunne did with his daughter’s killer. He hired a PI to track the guy and tell his employers about his crime, even after he tried to change his name.
August 31, 2011, 4:21 pmStephen Lathrop says:
I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea. I did think there was something like that available in at least one state (Idaho), years ago. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who could say more.
August 31, 2011, 4:24 pmJohnny Northside says:
This is a fascinating and elevated legal discussion. Due to the ongoing nature of the case, I must restrain my commentary for now in this forum but expect more things to be said on my blog, http://www.johnnynorthside.com, in the near future.
Thanks.
August 31, 2011, 5:05 pmMo’ in Montgomery: Be Very Worried « Countenance Blog says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy: $60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired [...]
August 31, 2011, 5:09 pmIn the month of May, 1991, the 1st respondent — M/s. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited – applied to the Punjab Financial Corporation (for short, `Corporation’) for a term loan of Rs. 47.60 lac and special capital assistance (soft loan) o says:
[...] $60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired (volokh.com) Share this:ShareEmailFacebookLinkedInTwitterPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
August 31, 2011, 7:35 pmM. Simon says:
President Obama was a friend of Bill Ayers.
Truth and malice all in one. And I’m trying to interfere with his job. And I hope he loses it.
So sue me.
August 31, 2011, 7:48 pmanon says:
This is a really weird ruling. What the hell?
August 31, 2011, 7:56 pmMark Duddridge says:
This article made me wonder about instances like that. Will this mean that any politician will now be able to sue anyone who says anything truthful, yet damaging, to their campaign for, or time in, office?
August 31, 2011, 8:04 pmStephen Lathrop says:
I have not suggested any restriction on true speech where the public interest is implicated. As I noted above, I thought the case was wrongly decided, for the reason you mention.
My concern is purely with allowing unlimited attacks on private individuals where the individuals targeted have done nothing at all to distinguish themselves in public, or to engage the public interest. And I reject any moral busybody appeal to public interest. That your neighbor is gay and cheating on his wife is not properly a subject for publication, however much you may resent it, or even fear God’s retribution on your community on account of it. Note that I distinguish between publication and gossip, and am not concerned about the latter. But note too that postings on blogs and facebook are publishing, although private email would not be.
Published invasions of privacy for the satisfaction of private malice are the kinds of actions that I think need limiting. As I have said several times, our social heritage has been largely free of those, for reasons having little to do with law, and much to do with the practicalities of traditional publishing. As internet publishing becomes the norm, those accustomed restraints will fade. Unless we want the trouble of coping with a public forum awash in anonymous, pointless, hurtful swill, some adjustment will be required. First amendment fundamentalism not only can’t cope with that, it will actually encourage it. Some legal adjustment will probably be required.
Nothing about any of that needs to weaken the vital protection of speech and publishing used for public purposes.
August 31, 2011, 9:26 pmStephen Lathrop says:
A misplaced example.
President Obama is a public figure and conducts public business. For that reason, no truthful publication about him, or any other public figure or political public servant should be restricted. Even the private lives of such people should continue as fair game, because such information may disclose useful insight into character that facilitates self-government. Candidates for elective office, or political appointment to office, rightly turn their lives into an open book.
The case of non-political public servants is more complicated. There is clear public interest in issues related to the pay of public servants, for instance, so specific information about the salaries and perks of teachers or police officers can not be off limits. But there would seldom be public justification for invading their personal privacy and publishing information, however truthful, about their (non-criminal) sex lives, their health history, or any of a host of other similarly publicly irrelevant facts about them. Not every case could be decided by rule, however. For instance, health history could become publicly relevant for a police officer claiming a disability pension against a backdrop of suspected pension abuse.
August 31, 2011, 9:52 pmAnti Johnny says:
The defendant has a long history of pushing the limits of some laws and then promotes himself as a victim afterward.
The link below is to an article that gives several examples of how the defendant, Hoff has refused to accept responsibility in the past no matter if a judge, the voting public or anyone else has ruled.
One fact about Hoff that has not been mentioned with regards to this case is that Hoff holds a law degree. It is no accident that upon losing in court, he quickly made himself the victim by claiming his (and everyone else’s) first amendment rights were at stake.
This is the same Hoff who threatened to “first amendment retaliate” against me personally.
September 1, 2011, 8:15 amAnti Johnny says:
Sorry, I am not sure if the link posted properly with my comments.
September 1, 2011, 8:37 amhttp://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/08/history-repeats-as-blogger-johnny.html
Anym_Avey says:
A person’s publicly available work history is not a matter of personal privacy, particularly not someone with such a dubious history and penchant for inserting himself into the news, as Moore.
http://www.citypages.com/2010-08-18/news/jerry-moore-has-a-controversial-past/
September 1, 2011, 1:33 pmTed says:
Stephen,
How do you define the scope of statements that fall under legitimate “public interest?” Doesn’t the effect of the statement prove that members of the public are, in fact, interested. If not, doesn’t that limitation dissolve into a kind of subjective morass?
If I truthfully tell and employer that you engage in legal, but deviant sexual practices, and he chooses not to hire you on that basis, what evidence do you have that such a statement is not of public interest?
September 1, 2011, 3:08 pmGreg Q says:
I look at Britain, and other places where “publishing the truth is not a defense”, and I have to believe that no matter how well meaning your idea, there’s no way to make it workable.
A simple example: If you reveal that your Muslim neighbor beats his wife, and justifies it using sharia, are you violating his privacy, or commenting on a public issue? If you reveal that your Muslim neighbor kicked out his son because he’s gay / daughter because she dated a non-Muslim, are you talking about intolerance, and it’s effects on public policy, immigration, etc., or are you invading people’s privacy?
Let a jury decide? No. Support the First Amendment, and let the information be out there.
There are good arguments to be made on what should be public records, and how the internet changes that. But that’s a completely different kettle of fish from this. One is cutting down on the information the government makes available. The other is using the government to punish people for telling the truth. And the government has no business doing that.
September 1, 2011, 3:23 pmTed says:
This left-wing bigot agrees.
September 1, 2011, 3:26 pmDave T says:
Actually you should read the Judge’s ruling (link attached). John Hoff is a malicious predator who uses his blog to attack people he has problems with, mostly minorities and landlords who rent to minorities. He wants to turn north Minneapolis, which is mostly minority, into an “Urban Utopia”, meaning he’d be really happy if all the colored folk were forced out. John has never liked Jerry Moore (who is a black man), and has used his blog to stalk and harass Mr. Moore for close to two years. When Mr. Moore lost his job with a local neighborhood organization (a neighborhood Hoff didn’t even live in), John Hoff stalked him on the Internet until he discovered Moore got a job with the UofM. John Hoff then worked (by his own statement) behind the scenes to get Moore fired. John Hoff contacted the UofM and threatened to publish a negative publicity campaign if the UofM didn’t fire Moore. John Hoff then blogged about his actions.
While the 1st Amendment protects free speech, those protections are not absolute. And what John Hoff did, essentially blackmail the University of Minnesota, is not protected speech. What John Hoff cannot understand or accept is that although a statement he made in his blog may have been truthful, it was his actions taken in aggregate that caused the jury, and the Judge to rule against him. And I suspect he has no chance of a success at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
LINK: http://www.mplsmirror.com/mpls/images/stories/pdf/Judge_Reilly.pdf
September 1, 2011, 3:43 pmJack Oliver says:
I have been following the situations regarding John Hoff for quite some time. He is really quite a character, and a dangerous character in the eyes of several people including members of the Minneapolis Police and Hennepin County probation who I have interviewed several times.
Here is another link that will give readers a better image of who John Hoff really is. His own roommate had to get a restraining order against him to protect herself from his aggressive attacks. He is known to have a volatile temper and has been kicked out of public meetings due to his abusive behavior.
And the Jordan Hawkman blog, if you have time to read through the hundreds of articles, will give you a complete (although biased) picture of what a possible psychopath John Hoff really is.
I have been following John Hoff’s actions and behaviors for quite some time, and I am just amazed that he has not been involved in a serious crime. He violates the laws of our society every change he gets, and always plays the victim. This is a guy who illegally parked his car, and then filed a complaint against the police officer who tagged it. What nonsense.
http://www.mplsmirror.com/mpls/images/stories/pdf/JohnHoff.pdf
http://jordanhawkman.blogspot.com/
http://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/
September 1, 2011, 4:08 pmAnon says:
I would go further and even question whether blackmail should be a crime. If I have the right to reveal something that is true, I should also be allowed to accept value in exchange for not revealing it. People who are blackmailed are typically trying to hide unsavory and often illegal behavior, and protecting people from the threat of blackmail helps to enable such behavior and may do more harm to society than good.
September 1, 2011, 5:18 pmTed says:
I assume you mean to allow contract law to govern such situations. A couple of points. If the information concealed is of conduct illegal in nature, then wouldn’t such a contract to conceal such information for value violate public policy?
Also, if the agreement to conceal information was not time-limited, wouldn’t later agreements lack of consideration and be unenforceable?
September 1, 2011, 5:22 pmTed says:
Dave and Jack,
Your comments here directly impugn Mr. Hoff’s character and integrity. Should he catch wind of this, I hope you both agree that your statements subject you to civil liability. Agreed?
Gasp! Mr. Hoff is obviously scum.
September 1, 2011, 6:11 pmJack Oliver says:
Ted says:
Dave and Jack,
Your comments here directly impugn Mr. Hoff’s character and integrity. Should he catch wind of this, I hope you both agree that your statements subject you to civil liability. Agreed?
Jack responds: I cannot speak for Dave, but I disagree with you Ted. I am reporting facts and backing up some of those facts with actual documents (links). The 1st Amendment protects my right to express my opinion and state truthful facts. My statements may tarnish Mr. Hoff’s character, but I have not stepped outside the guidelines of free speech.
Mr. Hoff may attempt a civil action against me for my words, but I am confident I would prevail in a civil suit and Mr. Hoff would certainly end up covering my legal fees.
Now, if I had posted a false statement, such as claiming that Mr. Hoff was a drug dealer. Of if I called Mr. Hoff’s employer (He has worked as a truck driver) and told them that he has several moving violations (a true statement) and they should fire him or I would post nasty information about the company all over Facebook, Hoff might have a case.
For the false statement of him being a drug dealer he might have libel case, and for threatening the employer he might have a “interference with contract” case.
But since my well worded comments are within the boundaries of free speech, I’m not concerned about a civil suit from Mr. Hoff.
I would also agree with Dave, as it is my opinion too that Mr. Hoff has a malicious predatory personality.
Opinions are protected speech.
I do see the point you are trying to make Ted. But John Hoff’s actions are clearly outside the protections of free speech. A jury of his peers agreed, and so did the presiding Judge. I sincerely doubt the Court of Appeals will reverse the district court after what the Judge wrote in her ruling, and it would be a very long shot that the Minnesota Supreme Court would hear the case after. Hoff is such an egotist he thinks this case will go to the US Supreme Court. He has a better chance of getting struck by lightening.
September 1, 2011, 11:57 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Why not give your information to the police, and then use the resulting conviction as an example in your discussion of public policy?
Your example is unpersuasive. If you can’t find any way to discuss public policy except by ignoring a practical remedy, and instead launch a public attack on your neighbor, who do you think will be persuaded by your arguments? Nobody who understands human nature is going to buy a high-falutin’ public policy diatribe centered around your animus toward your next-door neighbor. Do that, and you just undermine the case you are trying to make.
Permit me to challenge you. See if you can come up with something better, and I will endeavor to take your best example and show how the standards I have proposed can be used without creating harm in that case. I note that several other commenters have criticized my posts by citing examples that clearly implicate public policy. As I have said, all that should stay just as it is now, with truth an absolute defense. So please don’t fall into that trap in picking an example. Keep everything between people who are in no way connected to public policy or the public eye—because that is all I am talking about.
As for your question about making it workable. My sense is that it is working, in this country, right now. But unfortunately, only in the context of resolving certain questions in traditional libel actions. I’m merely suggesting that that tested standard be broadened to protect a needed right to privacy on the internet.
September 2, 2011, 7:46 amStephen Lathrop says:
I think Jack Oliver’s post is a valuable contribution, but I do wonder about this part of it:
Questions of that sort came up from time to time when I was the publisher of a small newspaper, and of course I had to consult lawyers about them. Based on what they told me, I suspect Oliver is on firm ground with regard to the case he cites. But I would be cautious about applying that rule generally, and especially in cases where the target of the opinion is a complete non-entity, and not enmeshed in the courts. And even more so in any case where the complete non-entity is involved in a private dispute with the person publishing the opinion.
September 2, 2011, 8:07 amStephen Lathrop says:
Maybe the fact that no conceivable change in public policy could flow from your disclosure. Public interest doesn’t mean whatever gossips want to hear. Public interest means stuff that might be of interest to people thinking about how to govern themselves, or keep themselves safe, healthy, or prosperous. Stuff like that.
And no, I don’t think those distinctions are at all hard to recognize. On the basis of those distinctions, I ran a newspaper that took on public controversy constantly, was threatened with lawsuits constantly—by people who didn’t like the stories—and never got sued. The complainers didn’t understand the distinctions, but their lawyers did.
Also, I had no trouble communicating those standards to my editorial staff and reporters, and I can’t recall a single instance where any story baffled us as to whether it was a public interest story or not. As a practical standard, it’s pretty clear.
September 2, 2011, 8:26 amTed says:
You don’t, but a jury might. I don’t think another subjective standard, and it is subjective if you defines it as “stuff that might be of interest to people thinking about how to govern themselves, or keep themselves safe, healthy, or prosperous,” is needed with respect to limitations on speech. It’s hard enough to prove whether something is true or false.
September 2, 2011, 11:13 am“$60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired” says:
[...] Eugene Volokh predicts that a Minnesota jury’s award will not stand; not only are people “constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired,” but the “First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts.” [Volokh Conspiracy] [...]
September 2, 2011, 11:50 amJohnny Northside says:
It’s tiresome to repeat all this stuff but some folks in this forum may not be familiar with the various players and their background, so here goes:
Jim Watkins, the so-called Anti-Johnny, is upset with me because his self-described “best friend,” Thomas Balko, is in prison for investment fraud and I did quite a bit of blogging about the scandal, known as the TJ Waconia scandal.
Heck, there’s even a TJ Waconia Victims Blog. Thomas Balko is cooling his heels in prison until, what is it? 2016? Something like that.
http://helgason-balko-mortgage.blogspot.com/
Watkins used to be involved in Balko’s business. He is a currently small time operator who has characterized himself as a “mentor” in making money in real estate, primarily in Texas. Invest your time, money, effort and/or trust with this “mentor” at your own risk.
One thing my blog did was to publish the only pictures which exist on the internet of Thomas Balko and his convicted business partner, Jon Helgason, shortly after their sentencing.
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/04/north-minneapolis-mortgage-fraudsters.html
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/04/jns-blog-exclusive-images-of-teary.html
I also did an exclusive story on Helgason’s luxurious lake home, which (last time I checked) Helgason’s family still enjoys.
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/12/jns-blog-exclusive-while-tj-waconia.html
For all the individuals who are screaming about something they say I did wrong, and what a “malicious” person I am, there is a back story about some truth that was exposed which needed to be exposed.
My recent commentary on the latest legal developments with this case are to be found in this blog post:
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-free-speech-issues-matter-in-jerry.html
Individuals close to the issues will recognize some of the parody in this blog post but those who aren’t familiar with the players can read it as a pure hypothetical.
September 3, 2011, 2:17 amJohnny Northside says:
I would also like to point out that a weekly publication in the Twin Cities named my blog “best blog” two years in a row.
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/04/best-blog-twin-cities-uh-huh-making.html
A similar honor came from being named to the Metro Top 100.
http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/09/johnny-northside-dot-com-blog-named-to.html
These are not the kind of accolades which are bestowed upon malicious, crazy dribble or bloggy truth telling which has nothing to do with public interest. Nor would amici like the Minnesota Chapter of the Society for Professional Journalists step forward to defend a blogger whose actions are purely personal, or stalking, or whatever.
Anybody can go to my blog, check out the hundreds and hundreds of stories–not all written by me–and decide if what I’m doing is in the public interest. Indeed, many of the comments published on my blog come from my harshest critics, and I publish the vast majority of the comments anyway.
Ultimately, I am confident free speech will win the day but only because I have the best pro bono legal help available in the country. What happens to bloggers who aren’t able to get such legal help, or who agree to shut up to make court cases go away?
The SLAPP statute isn’t enough to prevent lawsuits aimed at shutting up truth-telling by grassroots journalists who are long on idealism, short on resources. Moore sued me for DEFAMATION and the ruling said it wasn’t defamation, it was the TRUTH. Yes, Moore was involved with a high-profile, fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
Think about that. Moore sued me, saying it wasn’t the truth, but IT WAS ACTUALLY THE TRUTH.
Moore wasn’t a nobody, some poor little nobody who the big bad blogger was fixating upon. Moore was THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, getting paid a fat salary, until he was fired for (OMG) punching a board director in the face on the night of board elections. Moore was involved in several political campaigns and held a position with the local democratic committee until it was discovered that (OMG) he was LYING ABOUT LIVING IN THE DISTRICT.
So what was the lawsuit about?
Stopping the truth from being told. Shutting up the blogosphere.
September 3, 2011, 2:42 amAnti Johnny says:
To clarify… Hoff could find nothing about me that could be used to “First amendment retaliate” against me in public that would get me to back off from blogging about his past which, includes a recall election being held to remove him from office just months after being elected to the Grand Forks city council.
So Hoff went after something I did care about in an attempt to stop me from spreading the truth about him… My life long friend. Thats right, in public he warned, “Back off, Jim or I will make life for your friend miserable.”
I did not back off.
John carried out his threat and this is the result:
http://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/06/johnny-northside-makes-good-on.html
Now that John Hoff aka Johnny Northside has effectively broken up a friendship, he has nothing to attack me with but, as his post above shows…. He will still try by associating my name with my former friend.
I don’t need to threaten him nor do I have to resort to trying to break up his friendships. Why? Because, Hoff’s past is filled with controversy and wrongdoing all by itself and I have compiled much of it into one place so the public doesn’t have to spend as much time doing research as I have.
Here is the link to the truthful history of John Hoff.
September 3, 2011, 9:22 amhttp://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/
The most recent addition details (with proof) Hoff’s lies regarding his military disability.
Anti Johnny says:
Here is an excerpt from an article about John Hoff in the Grand Forks Herald, published on August 30, 2011.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/214153/
“Grand Forks connection
Hoff made headlines in Grand Forks in 2000 as he ran for a seat on the City Coucnil, getting elected the same summer Dr. Mike Brown defeated Mayor Pat Owens.
Within weeks of that June 2000 election, a member of his ward mounted a recall effort and obtained enough signatures by August to have a special election called.
In November that year, Lowell Stevens, who had lost by a few votes to Hoff in June, defeated him in the special election.
Hoff’s short tenue was attributed in part to his abrasive, confrontational style, along with unusual activism, which included trying to organize UND students for impromptu news conferences on the street.
He attended UND’s law school and moved to Minneapolis a few years ago. According to previously published stories in the Herald, Hoff grew up on a farm near Forada, Minn., near Alexandria, graduated from Concordia College in 1989 and served in the Army during the first Gulf War.
In the 1990s, he lived in Seattle, where he raised heck with local politicians on issues of homelessness and open records and other issues and made some headlines.
He told the Herald he moved to Grand Forks in early 2000, hoping to attend law school. He quickly mounted a campaign for city council.
In Minneapolis he has continued his eccentric form of community activism, attracting attention and making friends and enemies, now using the Internet as a main venue, as his attorney told the Star Tribune.
This article includes material from the Herald.
Distributed by MCT Information Services”
September 3, 2011, 9:35 amRon says:
Then the U should have sued him.
September 3, 2011, 6:12 pmEric Zaetsch says:
These last few comments are getting into things outside of the evidence, the record upon which the post-trial motion decision was grounded. I find quite troublesome that the trial judge wholly ignored the amicus brief, submitted by order-memorandum recipient John Borger – you have a cover page in the online pdf. The amicus Borger represented is a professional journalist organization worried about the reach and implication of collateral tort as a weapon to stifle speech by press or blog writers.
Amicus brief online:
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/20110328_171721_spj_amicus.pdf
A very well written public explanation of the amicus group’s decision to enter the case:
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11778
You post the opinion and any reader can see the trial judge accorded no mention of the amicus argument, much less addressing memorandum language to it’s citiations and explaining her reasoning for ignoring that line of precedent. It is as if the amicus brief had never been filed, if all you view is what the judge wrote. Is it intellectually honest judging to do that? Is it more the norm than the exception to see opinions ignore the hard counterarguments, and is that a major problem?
Local press coverage, of the amicus filing, and the latest decision (with Borger being the newspaper’s lawyer also):
http://www.startribune.com/local/118658924.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/128638308.html
Hoff complained of a government agency [a state university community liaison operation] making what he viewed as a bad hire; which had the potential of reflecting badly upon the agency and its community-relations effort. Bad apple spoiling the bunch stuff.
Back in March when the amicus intervention was announced, I wrote on my blog:
“BOTTOM LINE ON THE INTERVENTION PETITION: The journalism society’s board deserves credit for making a decision in their own best intersts, but WELL beyond that, in the best interests of civil society and citizens’ right (and need) to know true facts and news. Social and political decisions cannot be wisely made by an ill-informed or misled public. We can each find things in news reporting to carp about, but without it, how can a voting process be at all sound, and how, as in this Moore v. Hoff situation, can a government agency be made by the public to function wisely if citizens are denied truthful reporting of things the agency has been doing?”
Readers here may differ, but my opinion is that the fact is relevant that Hoff’s effort was a citizen’s public complaining about what THE GOVERNMENT was doing [the U being a part of the government, funded publicly, etc.] There is a Constitutional right to petition the government for favorable outcome, and that clearly has to reach to urging others to petition, or the right is too circumscribed (freedom of association also arguably subsuming a right to collectively petition as well as other actions not aimed at petitioning government but at private parties; e.g., organized NAACP boycott activity was held protected action, despite “intentional” harm to the pecuniary interest of those against whom the boycott was aimed; e.g., a collective union position or strike “intentionally” aimed to inflict pecuniary pressures upon another party). Aspects of the case not apparent from court papers, include the fact that previously City Pages, a Twin Cities news outlet had published three Jerry Moore is not a nice guy items, and noted that in the course of that Moore had lost his job at a Wells Fargo bank branch. That was private sector firing in sequence after publishing, there was no petitioning right at stake, but Moore and his “activist attorney” did not take on City Pages (presumably having a deeper pocked than Hoff). This thing was wholly to quell Hoff’s speech, whether ill-motivated as some have suggested, or not, it is public speech that a special jury verdict form said was not untrue. There was a dearth of proof of causation, that Hoff’s actions in fact got Moore fired from his job, with Moore not bringing in an employer witness to say so. Arguably it was an attempt at tortious interference, but not causative, based on trial evidence [without circumstantial overreaching inferences that were okay with the trial judge]. Some suggested the jury special verdict form was misleading.
The case has interested me because I blog and from time to time I criticize local government action [trying to always conform to Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute definition of "public participation," see MS Ch. 554], and in earlier blogging I posted the jury verdict form, and the full post – where you can see the gist – in which Hoff states his belief that he was effective in getting Moore fired.
http://zaetsch.blogspot.com/2011/03/johnny-northside-more-about-special.html
Also, in posting about the latest judicial post-trial order-memo, the comments are relevant, with informative links, from this one onward:
http://zaetsch.blogspot.com/2011/08/johnny-northside-anti-blogging-freedom_30.html?showComment=1314928670081#c750918983845005369
It appears there were public statements by Moore supervisory personnel at UROC, and in the U community, denying that Hoff had any role and that Moore’s appointment was a temp thing to monitor and accumulate news articles on mortgage situations in North Minneapolis, and that it had naturally run its course – i.e., the job ran out, Moore was not fired for any cause; and the online links are given within that comment thread if anyone wants to have a look. There was never any testimony, as I understand things, by an employer person in the trial.
It is hard not to conclude that Moore and his lawyer took a run at Hoff, not because he did anything largely different than City Pages did in publishing, but because of interpersonal aspects and because he was an easier target – less able to put up a defense than the City Pages publication. He had to rely upon a last minute pro bono representation to be represented at all, and the trial judge declined to postpone trial to let the attorney get up to speed. The attorney had many bases to touch, and cannot be criticized when a co-defendant turned and testified on behalf of Moore and when discovery had closed well before the eleventh hour involvement of trial counsel. Had a continuance been granted, there might have been time to find and bring in persons mentioned in the online reporting as UROC people publicly saying Hoff did not precipitate a firing but that instead a temp job ran out in the normal course of things.
So, the trial judge forcing a trial with new pro bono representation having to rush preparation; then not addressing the amicus contentions in issuing a final order are facts not apparent superficially but which I contend caused Hoff substantial prejudice and injustice to Hoff. Trial judge conduct not representing an abuse of power is never viewed by reviewing judges as cause for a reversal, so any appeal will be concerned with other things. However, in a community sense, did Hoff suffer an injustice? I hope this added detail helps readers wrestle with that as a question beyond “the law says this or that.”
If I were to write a play based on this, that is the question it would face, but what the appeal faces and how it turns out will be largely distanced from such a consideration.
September 4, 2011, 9:41 amC says:
What about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? Doesn’t it bar certain types of speech that aren’t direct in the same manner, but might be truthful?
September 4, 2011, 12:22 pmEric Zaetsch says:
Stephen Lathrop – at comment: August 31, 2011, 9:52 pm
Pretrial, the judge ruled plaintiff Moore a limited public figure for defamation law purposes. That was an aspect of the case.
From earlier press coverage beyond blogging, he gained that status.
It was argued as an adversarial question, both sides having a say, and news coverage in multiple mainstream [some quasi-mainstream] outlets existed. We can debate it here, but I only want to flag that it was part of the litigation, and the result.
September 4, 2011, 3:34 pmShould Truth Have Barred Interference Claim Against Blogger? | Post or Perish ® says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy understands the ruling may be appealed and cites to several lower court cases that [...]
September 6, 2011, 6:38 pmBen D says:
Also in Minnesota, a defamation plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed, has appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, seeking separate adjudication of the derivative charge interference with business.
See:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZzqilT53-m0J:www.statenewslines.com/X18be7328991b07eb29f26a369556548b+dennis+laurion+duluth+mn&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/view/publicCaseMaintenance.do?csNameID=71108
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/60000-ruling-against-truthful-blogger-tests-limits-first-amendment (first comment)
September 15, 2011, 6:44 am