San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Been a topic before. I think of these blogs as water-cooler talk online. Free speech. Discussing opinions, views and public information.

I guess what I am asking is how many of you feel about this quote from the article and your willingness to accept risk when posting to a public forum?

"A lot of bloggers think of themselves as individuals or maybe writers but in the courts, they are considered a publisher"

"Defamation is defamation no matter whether it is written on paper or on a blog," it said in the article.

It's usually a bad idea to give legal advice if you're not a lawyer, on a blog or not. Other certain speech is probably also a bad idea (e.g. investment advice, tax advice, etc.) in such a forum.

If you think about it before you write, you can probably balance your need to express an opinion with some basic life risk management.

"Other certain speech is probably also a bad idea (e.g. investment advice, tax advice, etc.) in such a forum."

Wouldn't you just love to be a juror if someone sued for bad investment advice on a blog from a random person. I would constantly send notes to the judge from the dilberation room in hopes they would be read in court, something like this "the jury has requested 12 large bats with the words "dummy stick" written on them so they may beat the plaintiff senseless."

Purporting to be an expert and stating one's credentials, then giving advice known to the author to be untrue, harmful or misleading is one thing. But us yahoos giving our opinions is a risk I'm willing to take and something that our constitution and laws are designed to protect. Many a man and woman have given their lives to protect this freedom, it's our responsibility to exercise it.

I agree*

* Statement not to be construed as legal advice. The author provides no warranty to the authenticity or validity of any statements posted herein. Statements are made for author's personal amusement and are not to be construed as investment advice. May cause itching, burning, rash, and gas with oily discharge. Seek immediate medical attention if you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.

Hang on, this lady is not a "blogger". She posted a comment on someone's blog. Do I not understand the definition of a blogger or something? I don't consider these replies on a forum to be blogging nor do I consider myself a blogger. How can these silly replies be considered publishing? It is not her website. I think the courts are way off on this one but it seems like her big mistake is the staged computer theft (which she shouldn't have to turn over in the first place).

If you're really concerned, use a anonymizer proxy service run in the russian, chinese, or eastern europe domain (.ru or .cn)....Even if they did maintain weblogs, good luck getting source ip addresses from those external ISP's.

But I also agree with the line in the article:
"Defamation is defamation no matter whether it is written on paper or on a blog"
(quoted above by asragov)

People need to think before they type. Just like they need to think before they speak in public. This person alleged things that are in dispute, as fact. Denied they typed it, then failed to produce their computer. The reason Lyndal Harrington is in jail is for contempt, not for blogging.

(But I insert the same disclaimer as FSD - this is not advice, legal or otherwise. Don't act on what I type. I'm not a lawyer or a blogger.

I would have to keep sending notes apologizing for laughing out loud in court, snickering, spitting out water as I gag on the uttuer stupidity while drinking, and generally being a jackass. And I would request that my bat have "SENSE" written on it so that I could beat some 'sense' into the idiot who thought random blog reply's was good investment advice.

LOL, that last cavat was perfect.

I agree that the theft is highly suspect. But how can a court rule in such a strict manner considering the facts or a case and the damage done to the defendant. They must have had to troll the depths of the web to find those comments.

This comment below by the professor is also very troubling to me:

His organization has created an on-line course with Harvard Law School, City of New York School of Journalism and News University at the Poynter Institute at Northwestern University to educate bloggers about their legal rights and responsibilities.

"A lot of these cases could have been avoided if things had been worded just a little differently or if they had double sourced their information," Cox said.

"Most of the time, these people are not trained journalists."

Is her choice of speech not protected regardless of the form? Why should she have to word her views differently. Even if her views are factually incorrect, is she is still entitled to continue believing that she is right if she so chooses?