Is Blogging a Legal Risk?

[CBad]

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).

[Coronita]

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.

[Coronita]

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.

[Coronita]

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.

[Coronita]

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.

[Coronita]

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.

[UCGal]

[quote=CBad]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).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.

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.

[UCGal]

[quote=CBad]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).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.

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.

[UCGal]

[quote=CBad]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).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.

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.

[UCGal]

[quote=CBad]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).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.

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.

[UCGal]

[quote=CBad]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).[/quote]
I agree with you that she’s not a blogger, she’s a commenter or participant in a message board.

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.

[DWCAP]

[quote=temeculaguy]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.” [/quote]

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.

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=temeculaguy]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

LOL, that last cavat was perfect.

[DWCAP]

[quote=temeculaguy]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.” [/quote]

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.

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=temeculaguy]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

LOL, that last cavat was perfect.

[DWCAP]

[quote=temeculaguy]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.” [/quote]

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.

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=temeculaguy]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

LOL, that last cavat was perfect.

[DWCAP]

[quote=temeculaguy]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.” [/quote]

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.

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=temeculaguy]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

LOL, that last cavat was perfect.

[Author]

Posts