by Mike Masnick
Mon, Mar 14th 2011 7:47am
In a ruling that almost certainly will get overturned, a blogger who was sued for libel, and showed that he had spoken truthfully, was still ordered to pay $60,000, in a highly questionable ruling that routed around basic defamation law by claiming the amount ($35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for "emotional distress") was due to "tortious interference" with employment. The case involved a blogger named John Hoff, who wrote a scathing blog post about Jerry Moore who was apparently involved in a high-profile mortgage fraud. That blog post generated attention and complaints to the University of Minnesota, who had recently hired Moore. The University fired Moore the next day. The lawsuit tried a few claims to get around various protections, including claiming that Hoff was liable for comments made by users by creating a "defamation zone." Thankfully, the court didn't buy into that (a ruling that never would have survived a Section 230 challenge), but apparently did buy into this crazy tortious interference claim. If telling the truth about someone gets them fired, then the issue should never be about the person who told the truth, but the person who did whatever they did to make the truth about them a fireable offense. There's an expectation that Hoff will appeal, and many believe this will be overturned on First Amendment grounds. That seems likely, but it's still a huge process, and in the meantime, this awful ruling stands.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Saudi Arabia Says It Will Sue Twitter Users Who Compare It To ISIS; Apparently Skips The NY Times
- French Government Using State Of Emergency As An Excuse To Round Up Climate Change Activists
- Another Court Logically Concludes That Linking To Allegedly Defamatory Content Isn't Defamation
- European Patent Office Threatens Blogger With Defamation Lawsuit For Criticism
- Indiana Supreme Court Says Cop Can't Have His '01NK' License Plate