Wednesday, Feb 22, 2012
workaround

Donate Now tile

User login

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.




workaround



Triangle Park Creative

Johnny Northside on trial—and citizen journalism, too?

March 07, 2011

UPDATED 3/8/2011—At the start of the trial of blogger John Hoff (Johnny Northside) on Monday, Judge Denise Reilly advised the seven jurors in the courtroom to avoid reading the newspapers during the trial, and warned that they were not to be swayed by any media reports that might slant the facts one way or another. That's the law. It's also somewhat ironic, as media reports are at the heart of this case.

The case gets at the heart of what news reporting really means today. John Hoff maintains that he is a citizen journalist. Jerry Moore, who is suing Hoff, maintains not only that Hoff's criticism of Moore was defamation, but also that Hoff's blog is not journalism and is not protected by the First Amendment.

On June 21, 2009, Hoff wrote a blog post about Jerry Moore, who had formerly been Executive Director of the Jordan Area Community Council and who had been fired from that position.

On Monday, Moore's attorney, Jill Clark, argued that Hoff made false statements about Jerry Moore on his blog, that he waged a campaign to get Jerry Moore fired from his position at the University of Minnesota, and that he incited others to make statements to get him fired. 

Full disclosure: The Johnny Northside blog is occasionally re-published on this website, as are blogs from dozens of other local bloggers.

In his opening remarks, Hoff's lawyer, Paul Godfread, said he intends to prove that evidence suggests that Hoff's accusations were true and supported by public record.

 

 

First Amendment and blogs

Mainstream MPR blogger Tom Collins notes:

"It's about this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Kansas preacher and his flock has every right to stand outside the funeral of soldiers killed in war and scream, 'God hates fags.' How, in turn, does a court say a guy with a blog -- or a sign, for that matter -- can't say the U of M shouldn't hire someone? That's the only question, and the only issue."

(Read the full post here—it's short, and well worth your time.)

In the post, Hoff wrote that "certain neighborhood movers and shakers" had "consternation followed by seething anger" when they learned of Moore's new position at the University of Minnesota's UROC program.  Hoff wrote:  "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."

The case Hoff was referring to involved Larry Maxwell, who is now serving time in prison for mortgage fraud.  One of the properties involved in the case was 1564 Hillside, and Jerry Moore was named in the case as receiving $5,000 for contractual work.  During that trial, Moore denied having a contract with Maxwell's company, and was not charged with any crimes. 

Also on Hoff's blog, an anonymous commenter wrote on his June 21 post: "I suggest we all write to the Board of Regents - they can be reached right here: 

http://www1.umn.edu/regents/regent_contact%20info.html 

 Be sure to include printed pages of blogs, news articles and other documentation of the type of quality leader that Mr. Moore exemplifies." 

In her remarks, Clark said that though Hoff didn't write the anonymous comment, his blog has the capability of approving or not approving comments, and thus is responsible for the content.  Judge Reilly said she would think overnight whether Hoff should be responsible for the comments. 

The trial began at 1:35 p.m., and during the afternoon, two witnesses were called to the stand.  The first was Stevan Jackson, a former member of JACC who has known Moore since the 1980s when Moore went to middle school with his daughter.  Jackson described Moore as an upstanding citizen and that Hoff's blog attacks anyone who disagrees with City Council member Don Samuels.  (Moore has worked for a candidate who ran against Don Samuels in the past). 

Only two witnesses were called on Monday afternoon, and most of the time was spent on questioning of Hoff by Jill Clark.  She questioned his education, including his journalism training.  Hoff said that he has received journalism training through his English degree from Concordia, learning from a "hippy journalist" when he was a young man, and through his position as a teaching assistant for a Journalism 3101 class at the University of Minnesota. 

Clark questioned him about his knowledge of a long list of tenets of ethical journalism, and asked Hoff, "Do you cover the news?" 

"I cover news..." he replied, "but not only the news."

Hoff asserted that his post on June 21, 2009 was truthful, and biased only against "wrongdoing." 

The trial continues tomorrow.  Expected witnesses down the road include Don Samuels, Michael K. Browne (former chair of JACC's board), Don Allen, and Melanie Michaels, whose husband's identity was stolen in the Maxwell case. 

The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies. Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit.

Sheila Regan's picture
Sheila Regan

Sheila Regan (sheila@tcdailyplanet.net) is a Minneapolis theater artist and freelance writer.

Article Tags:

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Should Free Speech be protected when used as a weapon?

I am all for free speech and people having a right to form an opinion. However, there are exceptions to nearly everything.
If a blogger decides to post something online about someone who will be humiliated by the post about them or are likely to be ruined career-wise simply because of a public accusation or worse, while the poster uses it as a threat to get their way... Does that change the rules? 
What if the person killed themself like the person did recently after a video was posted without consent? Does that change the rules?


http://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/03/moore-v-hoff-...


This link shows a copy of an email that was sent by the defendant in this case, John Hoff in 2008. Hoff wanted the blog that portrayed him in a negative but, accurate light, deleted from the internet.
His email goes on to say that if the blog is not deleted, he (Hoff) will be forced to "First Amendment retaliate".
Some people who do something because, their reputations, career or way of life are being threatened consider that to be blackmail. It is not legal to force a person to do something against their will because, they are being threatened.
Does the first amendment  rights extend to a person who uses it as a weapon against another person?

Jerry Moore v. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside

Correction.

Moore was not called to the stand in Maxwell. The trial where he denied being involved was actually the trial over who was the leadership of JACC, when those documents were put in front of him. And he didn't deny BEING INVOLVED. He denied that he'd ever seen those two documents before. 

Other credible witnesses like Don Samuels, Lisa Mitchell, Anderson Mitchell have heard Moore admit to being "involved." And slumlord Keith Reitman, the seller of the property in question, told me TO MY FACE about Moore's involvement.

The victims of the mortgage fraud have attempted to sue Moore. 

Thanks for covering this....

Truth is an absolute defense against charges of defamation. 

It's worth nothing that this has not always been the case, and could cease to be the case in the future if these cases aren't well-defended.

 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img> <span> <div>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use [google_ad:ad_slot] to display Google Admanager ads within your content.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
workaround

Free Speech Zone

The Free Speech Zone offers a space for contributions from readers, without editing by the TC Daily Planet. This is an open forum for articles that otherwise might not find a place for publication, including news articles, opinion columns, and announcements. The opinions expressed in the Free Speech Zone and Neighborhood Notes, as well as the opinions of bloggers, are their own and not necessarily the opinion of the TC Daily Planet.

Click here to see a display of Twin Cities problem reports, from potholes to neighborhood eyesores. Click here to report a problem. Have you used SeeClickFix? Have you gotten any response from city officials? Let us know - email info@tcdailyplanet.net