Court Overturns $60k Verdict Against Blogger Who Told The Truth

from the about-time dept

A few years ago, we wrote about a horrifying ruling in which a blogger who was sued for libel was told he had to pay $60,000, even though it was shown that what he had said was entirely truthful. It's an oft-repeated statement that truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims, but in this case, things got weird (and troubling). The ruling found that even though the statements were truthful, they represented "tortious interference" with employment. The case involved a blogger named John Hoff who blogged, truthfully, about Jerry Moore's involvement in a high-profile mortgage fraud situation. Moore had been hired by the University of Minnesota, but was apparently let go soon after Hoff's post. It seemed absolutely ridiculous that providing truthful information about someone should ever be seen as illegal, but that seemed to be the case here. The original ruling was a jury verdict and we had hoped that the court would set aside that verdict, but it chose not to, going against a rather large collection of case law (and common sense).

Thankfully, Hoff appealed, and the appeals court has now reversed the original ruling. The appeals court made the point clearly and concisely:

Because truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation, truth should also be a defense to a claim for tortious interference with a contract arising out of an allegedly defamatory statement.

The court goes into much more detail over its decision to reverse and send it back to the lower court, but it all comes back to the basics. If the content is truthful, then there's no issue:

Moore argues that Hoff is not shielded from tort liability simply because Moore could not prove the falsity of Hoff’s statement. Rather, Moore urges us to rely instead on Hoff’s motivation for making the allegedly defamatory statements. Moore asserts that because Hoff had an ulterior motive of getting Moore fired, he can be liable for the tortious-interference claims. We disagree.

When a person conveys unflattering and possibly damaging information to another person’s employer, it is unlikely that the motivation for conveying that information is borne out of affection. It is much more likely that the intent is for the employer to take responsive action -- up to and including termination -- based on the content of that information. Regardless of the motivation of the messenger, if the information conveyed is true, it is not appropriate for liability to attach.

It's good that the courts seem to have fixed the earlier decision, but it's still crazy that it even got this far.

Filed Under: defamation, jerry moore, john hoff, tortious interference, truth

Court Upholds $60,000 Ruling Against Blogger... Even Though His Statements Were True

from the scary-stuff dept

One premise that has been a key element in protecting First Amendment rights in defamation cases is the idea that "truth is an absolute defense against defamation." You can't defame someone if you tell the truth about them. And yet, courts have been eating away at this concept. A few years ago, we wrote about a troubling appeals court ruling, that seemed to suggest that if there's "actual malice," in presenting information, even if it was truthful, there could still be a legal claim. Earlier this year, we heard of a similar case, in which a jury awarded a man $60,000 in damages after a blogger posted truthful information about him that indirectly resulted in the guy losing his job.

Unfortunately, while it had the opportunity to do so, the court has refused to set aside the jury's verdict. While the straight defamation claim failed, the guy, Jerry Moore, was able to get blogger John Hoff, under a claim of "tortious interference," because of the job loss.

But, as Eugene Volokh explains, this seems to totally ignore a ton of caselaw and the simple fact that there's nothing illegal in wanting to get someone fired, and revealing truthful information about them in order to do so:

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.

Somewhat amazingly, it appears the court ignored both of those arguments, despite them each being raised by Hoff's lawyer in the motion to put aside the jury verdict as well as during the trial itself. It appears that Hoff will appeal, and hopefully the appeals court will recognize what a troubling ruling it is when you can get in legal hot water for actually telling the truth about someone.

Filed Under: defamation, jerry moore, john hoff, tortious interference, truth