Blogs are often more opinionated than reporting you read in mainstream media, being more comparable to the editorial page than the front page.
That is the nature of online publishing by individuals, and readers should have come to expect opinion and perhaps controversy expressed in blogs, more so than from WCCO, PiPress, or Strib.
That is how it is.
Postings complained of in the lawsuit are in the public domain now, online here and here. For a flavor and context of the blog in which those posts occur; examine this blog archive block. For the general gist of that blog's posting about the plaintiff Jerry Moore, within that archive span, readers can open the link and do a name search.
Reader comments on those complained of blog posts are also at issue.
So, is an outlet, a content portal, responsible for the content others post? If so, to what degree, in litigation?
All that could be a trial issue, or not.
The plaintiff's summer 2009 complaint can be read online, here. Filing of the complaint drew contemporaneous blog attention and opinion, e.g., here.
Strib this morning reports the matter is going to trial this week, with jury selection scheduled for today.
Friday, Jon Tevlin of Strib also reported, this link. If you Google "Johnny Northside" you may find there is critical material published against Hoff, the individual being sued, aka Johnny Northside. Comments to the Tevlin reporting are mixed.
I learned positive things about Brad Johnson, a candidate last election for Anoka County Attorney, from that blog. Hoff expressed opinions I came to agree with regarding Johnson, and in part that added to my informing myself before deciding to vote for Johnson instead of the election victor, Tony Palumbo.
Hence, there clearly is a newsworthy dimension to Hoff's blogging; i.e., I gained knowledge that, but for Hoff's effort, I might not have known. I have posted about the blog, should anyone care to review things I published prior to this present litigation reaching trial.
For a quick understanding of the situation, the claims at issue, read the current Monday March 7 Strib item. Authored by reporter Abby Simons, it is tightly written and informative. Again, this link.
My understanding is that Hoff, until recently was pro se or had other arrangements, but within less than a month his present pro bono representation was attained - in that regard, read the Friday Strib item, again, this link. Former judicial candidate Jill Clark represents the Plaintiff, Jerry Moore. Paul Godfread represents the Defendant, blogger John Hoff. Defamation and tortious interference with a contract are causes of action Moore asserts. Readers are on their own to inform themselves about the legal nuances of such tort claims. I offer no "quick links" for that purpose since absent trained and extensive research, one can be as easily misinformed as guided.
A last point before trasitioning, per the presently most current Johnny Northside post, for anyone wishing or able to attend:
Room 655C, Hennepin County Government Center, the court of the Honorable Judge Denise Reilly, beginning at 9 a.m. with jury selection, the fun and interesting part may begin around 10 or 10:30.
It is a trial, so don't expect a circus. Popcorn and cotton candy are not permitted, as disrespectful to the situation and indecorously beyond the demeanor required of persons within the courtroom.
Recollection of Olson v. Brodkorb. The Johnny Northside lawsuit is not the first instance of a Minnesota blogger being sued. Many are aware of the history, but for those unaware, briefly:
At about the end of 2005, the blog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed posted a series of items about an individual, Blois Olson. A demand for retraction was, I believe, involved, and Olson sued. At the time there was speculation of who the publicly unknown blogger was that had been publishing Minnesota Democrats exposed for some time, leading to this "landmark" watershed item, which opened per this screenshot:
If you do not see the compelling drama in all that, join the crowd. It's somewhat short of "J'accuse" in impact, depth, style and pizazz.
Court papers were posted by Brodkorb and remain available online, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here. Posting court papers was a public service of MDE we should applaud. An anti-SLAPP pretrial dismissal motion by Brodkorb was filed, and I cannot recall reporting of the outcome. However, in the last court filing posted by Brodkorb Plaintiff Olson argued, (p.6 of the memorandum, p.9 of the pdf's 24 pages), "Nothing in Defendats' statements comes near to petitioning the government. Defendants' publication was solely meant to impugn Plaintiffs' credibility. Defendants cannot point to any favorable action that they wish to procure from the government." In effect the contention was that the specific content complained of was more akin to general gossip, or commentary, than to public participation aimed at attaining a favorable government result as the statute requires.
The screenshot gives only the beginning of the Brodkorb post, and for history's sake, it remains online; which is good. Press coverage back then in early 2006 was reasonably widespread; with Minn Independent coverage being a good example. My recollection is that ultimately it was a tempest in a teapot, and that it somehow went away not setting any landmark legal precedent. Any reader knowing more is invited to email me or to submit a comment.
Additional press coverage in 2005-2006: here (including the awful phrase, "Wild West frontier of blogging." Anyone wanting to research further, this Google indicates that surprisingly there is material still online in addition to what I have identified.
So what should readers make of a five-year gap between newsworthy defamation litigation aimed against online individual publishers (aka "bloggers"), with similarities and differences between the two lawsuits, Brodkorb's and Johnny Northside's? Although I have a host of opinions, I will let each reader exercise his/her own judgment.
__________UPDATE___________
There is coverage of Olson v. Brodkorb, Citizen Media Law Project, here.
Order and Memorandum of the Court, on motion, is online, here.
I believe this is a helpful presentation about Brodkorb being sued, it indicates there ultimately was a dismissal, and the citemedia.org website appears worth attention. Particularly so, for bloggers worried about when/if some deep pocket creep will take a run at them. It happens. It can even come from use of a wholly inappropriate court calendar, used by an unusually ill-advised or unprincipled person, in a patently offensive and oppressive way. It happened.
____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
It appears Brodkorb attained a summary judgment dismissal on a largely secret record, March 6, 2007. Presuming the stipulated secrecy was to protect against public disclosure of Brodkorb sources, likely revealed within the litigation in exchange for a promise of nondisclosure outside of the litigation, the level of secrecy appears proper - again under such a presumption. Whether that's the case is unclear to me at present.
It is unclear how sources can be properly protected while at the same time litigating a contest on whether something was published with reckless disregard for the truth, or with reservations in the mind of the reporter about truthfulness and source reliability. Second-sourcing info is always a cover, to a degree, but if the defense comes down to a confidential source and reliance thereon, when a published statement is provably false and harmful, it's a journalistic thicket.
The earlier referenced Brodkorb "I am MDE" post did discuss source confidentiality.
Again, a hat-tip to citemedialaw.org for archiving case data not otherwise available via general web info retention processes. They maintain a database, which provides a public benefit.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
There is the case of Sherrod v. Breitbart, see this link. Breitbart is the person behind the anti-ACORN pimp-prostitute forgery - an extreme editing of video to misstate the correct general encounter situations the Breitbart agents had with ACORN people. Sherrod claims Breitbart did the same false video editing trick to her, costing her loss of employment by Department of Agriculture. For more detail, Google the two last names; Google "Andrew Breitbart;" or see these Brad Blog links.
It is not a polite-parlor standard of conduct and good manners, between Breitbart and Friedman. Yet neither sues the other over defamation. There needs to be latitude in things, or there is no freedom. Freedom includes an entitlement to be crude, rude and lewd, as someone once phrased it to me. Not that all or a majority of discourse should be all three, but nither dimension should be unreasonably restrained. And who is to say what is a reasonable vs an overreaching constraint? Having opinions of where a boundary of good taste or propriety are overstepped differs from imposing rules against others with separate opinions. And always the process is against others, limiting their freedom. Those agreeing with me are okay by tautology.