The Trial of the Century

Today a Minneapolis jury found against a blogger who had written a post that got someone fired from his job at the University of Minnesota. This case had been billed by many as the blogosphere "Trial of the Century." Like so many things on the Internet, this is wildly overstating the case.

The defendant, John Hoff, who blogged as "Johnny Northside," was ordered to pay $60,000 to Jerry Moore. On his blog Hoff had accused Moore of being involved in a mortgage scam that landed real estate agent Jerry Maxwell in jail for 16 years. Moore was not prosecuted in that case.

The jury found that although Moore had been involved in the mortgage, he hadn't been convicted of anything and Hoff's blog post "intentionally interfered with Moore's employment contract with the University of Minnesota Urban Outreach and Outreach/Engagement Center."

It's not clear from the story whether the jury found any validity in the charge of defamation of character, or just found for the contractual interference. So I'm not really sure that this case would have gotten anywhere if Moore had not been fired. The question is, if Hoff had simply mouthed off about Moore and Moore had kept his job, would there have been any case at all?

I've been ambivalent about blogging for a long time. I only started doing so at Markadelphia's request because he has less time now. Blogs and the bickering that accompany them seem to generate only heat and no light. No one is convinced of anything: most people seem intent on gotchas and zingers. (Yes, and in the heat of the moment I've been guilty of it too.)

Is the Johnny Northside case a warning for all bloggers? One of the issues in the case was the defamatory comments that appeared on the blog. Usually, though not always, the comments on blogs are far worse than the posts themselves. (Just read the thoughtless, hate-filled, anonymous comments on stories on news websites for millions of examples.)

The FBI can probably find out who anonymous commenters are by asking websites and ISPs for the IP address of the commenter, but there are many ways of getting around even that if you're really determined.

Though Hoff uses the pseudonym "Johnny Northside," he makes no attempt to hide his true identity. His gmail address appears on his blog, composed of his legal name. If Hoff had taken pains to make himself anonymous he could have likely have said far worse things about Moore and never been called to account.

I'm all for more civility in Internet discourse. But unfortunately this case won't change anything. The most obnoxious and inflammatory posts are general in nature, not directed at private individuals, but at groups or public figures (who cannot sue for libel). When they do attack specific individuals they're not usually accusing them of involvement in specific criminal activity, as with Moore, but simply launching petty, ad hominem attacks at bloggers or fellow commenters, or accusing politicians or groups like unions or corporations of amorphous conspiracies and working toward some secret agenda. When such accusations come to light they can easily be characterized as the rantings of an anonymous crank. When someone believes enough in their message to identify themselves it lends it somewhat more credence.

The most worrisome aspect of this case was that the jury found for the "interference with the contract." Known as SLAPP suits, corporations love to use this as a threat against individuals to prevent them from lodging protests against their activities. Don't like the deal a company made with local government? Don't like the crap a company is dumping in a local landfill? Complain about it in public and the company will sue you for interfering with their contract. Companies across the country have been suing local activists to silence them. And you never hear about them because of the gag order that always accompanies the settlement or the judgment.

From the Johnny Northside case it seems that you get into trouble when your identity can be verified and you accuse a private individual of involvement in criminal activity, and that accusation causes the victim some material harm. To stay out of trouble, don't let anyone connect you to your vitriol and keep it vague.

And, sadly, that's exactly what makes so much of the Internet a dismal place to be sometimes.