Blogger Fined $60,000 for Telling the Truth

The "law" in civil court is the decision of the jury. Which can be justice or a deadly weapon.

It is ridiculous that someone is being punished for telling the truth , within this society its an accomplishment to be truthful(given all the information posted was in fact truthful). Also if the information posted was bad enough to get this man fired why should the blogger have to pay him any amount of lost wages when it was his own actions that lost him said wages? Doesn't exactly make sense.

www.creditresolution.com

It's not a fine. A judgment was entered against him. There's a huge difference between a fine and a judgment.

I agree that this is a pretty egregious injustice, but I feel compelled to point out that his first amendment rights have not been trampled. Congress hasn't passed any laws banning free speech. The first amendment doesn't address civil penalties.

There is a PayPal button on my blog, www.johnnynorthside.com

If, you know, anybody wants to make sure there still is freedom on the blogosphere after this case is over. Also, the crowed of supporters at my half-a-victory champagne party last night apparently don't think I'm a douche bag or--if they do--they apparently think I have other favorable traits that outweigh it.

Get real, FOX sued for the right to lie in their broadcasts and won...they have been lying ever since...its why they are not allowed to open a franchise in Canada...some countries still have a sense of decency.

This should be overturned on appeal.

This is a complete disgrace. First of all the Westboro Baptist church was clearly overstepping it's legal bounds.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I'd like to know what happened to the family's right to "peaceably assemble"??? As this guy in the above article, his blog is no different than a newspaper as another commentator had said. This newspapers, magazines, and OH LET"S NOT FORGET THE TABLOIDS!! If they can print facts stating legal wrongdoings I fail to see why a blogger can be sued for the same. The tabloids... heh if he can be sued then the tabloids need to be hit for about gazillion dollars I'd wager.

You know what this reminds me of though. Don't tattle. That's basically what they nailed this blogger for which is total crap. Rather than promote doing the right thing, we punish people for it and that mental conditioning starts at the most basic levels. The fact that we have to fight that conditioning at the legal level is quite scary!!

Moronic jury!

If the media can report lies and falsehoods, then a blogger certainly shouldn't be sued for his blog! This is bs and this had to be a jury of morons.

THATS CRAZY. Whats wrong with this country? Civil shmivil. Facts is facts. People report the facts everyday as witnesses in court, should th criminals sue them even tho they r telling th truth?

This was truly an asinine decision, but it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. This was a civil case. The First Amendment is about the government infringing on free speech.

if we don't stand up for our first amendment rights, we are going to lose them.

that is absolutely insane! that is truly scary that you can be sued (and lose) for telling the truth on your blog... I just can't even wrap my head around this. Something is seriously wrong with this country and maybe it all goes back to poor education... Just some stupid ass jurors must have been on this one.

CORRECTION : The jury did not find that the blogger told the truth on all of his blogging.

We tried to post a link to the special verdict form but it was not approved on this site.

read queens bench vii

The problem with this particular blogger is that he is almost universally perceived as a huge douchebag. I think the jury just didn't like him and wanted to punish him. The verdict might get overturned, but the message of the jury is clear.

The Jury did not state that the defendant told the truth. It was an unanswered question on the special verdict form given to the jury.

Don't believe everything you read.

The www.Mplsmirror.com

and

http://jordanhawkman.blogspot....

have the correct details.