Photo and blog post by John HoffIt was expected that a trial would begin Thursday, March 3 in the Jerry Moore defamation lawsuit. Moore is suing this blog over a story published in June of 2009, click here. This blog is represented by Paul Godfread, a local lawyer found through the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School. The network describes this lawsuit as a threat to free speech. Godfread does intellectual property law cases and has been known to defend, for example, people accused of improper file sharing. Godfread jumped into the Moore v. Hoff lawsuit on short notice and was ready for a trial tomorrow. (Dramatic musical homage, click here)
However, during a pretrial hearing today (March 2) the Honorable Judge Denise Reilly delayed trial and set a hearing for tomorrow at 10 a.m., room 655C of the Hennepin County Government Building. The hearing will focus on matters such as...
...whether questions can be asked about the identity of confidential sources and whether it is allowed under federal law to sue a blog for publishing comments.
Some defense witnesses may take the stand to testify on these matters. Individuals who are intensely interested in the trial and the allegations still swirling around the mortgage fraud at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. are urged to attend, as well as various media who have been contacting Johnny Northside Dot Com.
Blog readers are urged to keep an eye on the Star Tribune, something might hit soon.
Oh, in regard to the photo above...a citizen on Hillside Ave. N. saved a souvenir for me of the infamous 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
Pretty cool, huh?
However, during a pretrial hearing today (March 2) the Honorable Judge Denise Reilly delayed trial and set a hearing for tomorrow at 10 a.m., room 655C of the Hennepin County Government Building. The hearing will focus on matters such as...
...whether questions can be asked about the identity of confidential sources and whether it is allowed under federal law to sue a blog for publishing comments.
Some defense witnesses may take the stand to testify on these matters. Individuals who are intensely interested in the trial and the allegations still swirling around the mortgage fraud at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. are urged to attend, as well as various media who have been contacting Johnny Northside Dot Com.
Blog readers are urged to keep an eye on the Star Tribune, something might hit soon.
Oh, in regard to the photo above...a citizen on Hillside Ave. N. saved a souvenir for me of the infamous 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
Pretty cool, huh?
25 comments:
"...whether questions can be asked about the identity of confidential sources and whether it is allowed under federal law to sue a blog for publishing comments."
The only one protected is the hosting service, in this case Blogspot. The law doesn't protect you at all Johnny.
This is not about free speech, this is about slander. You loose.
The following comment came from an anonymous commenter and hit my email inbox, but for some reason didn't appear in my comments box. Appears to be a technical glitch with Blogspot. Oh well, here it is:
-----------------
"...whether questions can be asked about the identity of confidential sources and whether it is allowed under federal law to sue a blog for publishing comments."
The only one protected is the hosting service, in this case Blogspot. The law doesn't protect you at all Johnny.
This is not about free speech, this is about slander. You loose.
--------------
To which I reply: I am sure you mean "lose" but some individuals who comment on North Minneapolis blogs are notorious for their struggle with the English language.
Also, the definition of slander is not "it makes me feel angry that this truth is being exposed."
FYI
John, I see the comment in question in the spam comments section.
Makes you wonder what kind of server these bozos are using?
Like maybe a server in China where folks click on websites all day to drive web traffic, and get paid pennies? All day long, click click click?
You know what I mean, ha ha.
Or they drive traffic with Digg.
"All day long, I Digg Digg Digg."
You forget about the part where you sent emails/mail directly to the UofM for the sole purpose of getting Jerry fired, and interfered with Moore's employment contract. That has nothing to do with blogging or the 1st Amendment.
Those were just malicious acts done out of spite by you because you enjoy inflicting misery upon others.
This lawsuit seems frivolous. I think slander is only applicable if false statements have been made and they most be proven to be false with malicious intent. It doesn't appear that applies here.
To the commenter at 10:04 AM.
Produce the email you allege to exist.
If I recall correctly, the comment section of the blog post in question contained an anonymous commenter suggesting and posting email addresses to various U of M officials such as the ED of UROC and the Board of Regents.
John didn't suggest emailing anyone and John didn't email anyone at U or M.
The law protects Johnny Northside from comments that are published on Johnny Northside.
I have obtained a copy of the complaint. I'm summarily unimpressed. Of note is that paragraph 10 in the complaint is factually untrue.
Controlling precedent in Minnesota holds that 'common-law malice' is insufficient for defamation of public figures. Moore is a public figure, the standard is actual malice - that you knowingly published things which were false.
You're in the clear.
Could ANON at March 3, 2011 10:04 AM be the plaintiff arguing his case in the forum he now sues?
Didn't the U of M deny firing Moore in the Minnesota Daily, and only admit that Moore's contract ended?
There were articles in the Minnesota Daily by Robert Downs, a two part series, but I believe the article you are referencing was actually in North News.
Here you go.
http://nenorthnews.com/CurrentNews.asp?view=1331&paperID=2&month=
I wanted to add a quick note about Paul Godfread...
Yes, he has done "wrongful file sharing cases." His real passion (besides the First Amendment) is "cyber law." So, for example, protecting the intellectual property of a software company.
All I have to say is Westbro Baptiat, you MFA (yhem - Jerry Moore). If those asshole have a right to free speech, than surely John Hoff does. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html
There is, however, a difference between unprovable matters of opinion (who is going to Hell, whether hell exists) versus matters of fact (who was involved in a fraudulent business deal.
Opinion is not subject to defamation. Facts are.
But when the truth is on your side, you don't have to worry about defamation.
Great - so if opinions are not the legally deformation. I think Jerry Moore is a fraud, acting out his repressed homosexuality by yellng at gay people. I think that he is an ass who threw a bright and talented law student out his apartment naked, becuase she was on to his repressed homosexuality.
Oh, my.
I am publishing your comment as I publish many comments. I am not asserting your comment is fact.
Your interpretation of the law is exceptionally narrow. That is why you will never make a good practicing attorney, or a law clerk for that matter.
Come out from the anonymous shadows and make a wager on it.
As for whether my interpretation of the law is narrow, how about you use your expansive legal imagination to explain how a blogger is not covered by the First Amendment as this bulls*** lawsuit purports?
Why would I want to go public with my identity and expose myself & family to the vicious personal attacks and harassment that John Hoff has long exposed his victims to?
There is nothing sinister or wrong as you imply with me or any of the other contributors to this blog wanting to maintain their privacy.
And to answer your question, the 1st Amendment is not absolute.
False statements, harassment, & intimidation are not protected free speech. Internet stalking is also not protected, and is a specifically addressed in Minnesota's stalking/harassment statute. If this case were so simple and direct, one would assume it would have already been dismissed. But a Judge found elements that supported a trial. That in itself should put bloggers on notice. Your callous behavior has put all blogger/journalists at risk.
So much for your "false statements."
Here's a statement for you:
Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile, fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
And the jury found that you caused Jerry Moore emotional distress and awarded him $60,000.
You still don't see the big picture. Your narrow view of things is pathetic.
To the first poster, whose comment I did not publish until just now because it ended up in the spam folder.
That's should be "lose" not "loose."
An article you wrote because Don Samuels told you to.
Don always has other do his dirty work.
Why would Don have me write THIS article?
That doesn't even make SENSE.
Post a Comment