web analytics

Blogger Beware: The “Johnny Northside” case

The Minnesota Court of Appeals is hearing an interesting case involving blogging and free speech. Blogger John (“Johnny Northside”) Hoff wrote a post on his locally popular blog that resulted in Jerry Moore being fired from his job. See the Star Tribune Article , 2012 WLNR 11034738.


According to the Star Tribune story, Jerry Moore had been involved in a local community council and later was hired by the University of Minnesota to study mortgage foreclosures.  Hoff alleged on his website that Moore had been involved in mortgage fraud, and questioned why the University would hire him. A commenter (previously another defendant who later settled) called for Moore’s termination. The story states that Moore was fired by the University soon after the post appeared.
 
Moore sued Hoff in 2009 for defamation, intentional interference with employment contract, and interference with prospective advantage. His amended complaint can be found on Westlaw at 2009 WL 8181963
 
At trial, the jury found that while the post was truthful, Hoff  interfered with Moore’s employment contract and awarded Moore $35,000 for loss of benefits of his employment contract and $25,000 for emotional distress or harm to reputation. A jury verdict summary can be found at: 2011 WL 3622928

Hoff appealed and oral arguments occurred on May 23rd. Hoff argues that his blog post is protected by the 1st Amendment, but the question is whether speech encouraging termination of an individual’s employment goes beyond the protections of the 1st Amendment. The Court of Appeals docket can be found on Westlaw Classic or WestlawNext, with the docket number: A111923

 

 

RESEARCH REFERENCES

 

Case Law Search: While this story is centered around free speech and defamation issues, the better strategy for researching similar cases might be to begin by searching the tort of wrongful interference with an employment relationship.   The relevant KeyNumber is 231HIX.  Try,

Query: 231HIX /p libel slander defam!

Results: 88 (all case law jurisdictions)

 

Or, simply combine the two relevant KeyNumbers into a single search.  Topic 237 is Libel and Slander:

 

Query: to(231HIX) and to(237)

Results: 434 (all case law jurisdictions)

Locateto(231hix) (237) /p truth!

Results: 119 of 434

 

34 Causes of Action 2d 1 provides elements for wrongful interference with an employment relationship:
(1) the existence and terms of an employment relationship;
(2) the defendant’s knowledge of the employment relationship;
(3) the defendant’s status as a “third party” to the relationship;
(4) the defendant’s conduct interfering with the plaintiff’s employment, which conduct was improper in motive or means;
(5) the defendant’s intent to interfere ; and
(6) a proximate causal relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s termination from employment; and
(7) damages resulting from the interference.
 

2 Responses to “Blogger Beware: The “Johnny Northside” case”

  • New post: Blogger Beware: The “Johnny Northside” case http://t.co/MkEhBOTt #Free_Speech

  • I, Johnny northside, won my case on appeal. If this was a case of “blogger beware,” well, blogger don’t be so wary. Truth prevailed. Truth is a defense to defamation and, as it turns out, to tortious interference with contract or prospective advantage as long as all you did was tell the truth.

Leave a Reply

Hurricane Sandy
Students: Login to lawschool.westlaw.com to donate your rewards points to the Hurricane Sandy relief effort.
DISCLAIMER
DISCLAIMERS: We’re lawyers but WE ARE NOT YOUR lawyers. Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice (because it’s NOT legal advice). Nor, is any communication within this blog intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Moreover, we make NO WARRANTIES relating to the information on this site including, but not limited to any warranty as to the correctness, currency, or accuracy of the information. While we make every effort to provide valuable, relevant information, readers should never rely only on information within this blog to make important decisions that might require advice of an attorney. Finally, we’re proud to be Reference Attorneys BUT the opinions expressed on this blog are solely the opinions of the posting author(s) and are not the opinions of the blog editors, Thomson Reuters, its affiliates, or any other related organization.