Does DU need a legal support forum for bloggers?

[Baitball Blogger]

Not too long ago I was on a jury which involved a poster that was obviously upset and was lashing out at everyone. He even condoned slander. I was the only jury out of six who suggested hiding one post because the conversation had gone over the edge. He went so far as accusing the other poster of being a freeper in an obvious move to show dissatisfaction with the poster's response. And the poster was clearly not a freeper. It was a devolving scenario.

At the time that I made my decision I was researching SLAPPs or strategic lawsuits that bloggers are now faced with. They're frivolous lawsuits which are meant to strategically close down a blogger who is often a whisle blower, revealing information on the net that corporations or lawyers don't want revealed. My concern is, that from my reading, I think the law considers all of us who post to a discussion board as public figures. If so, we need to watch more carefully what we say.

I know it sounds crazy and I hope I read the article wrong, but where can we go to get answers to be sure? Then it occurred to me that it's stupid not to have a forum here on DU where we can discuss the evolving legal issues that are affecting bloggers, when we may all be considered bloggers.

So why don't we have a reference forum that helps us keep up with the changing laws?

We can also post references that other people might find helpful. Like the one below. I don't know much about it, but it's one of those things that I wouldn't mind posting to hear if anyone has heard anything negative or positive about it:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/

[GopperStopper2680]

1. An interesting argument you make.

I would have to agree that if we post anything in front of potentially millions of people or at least thousands we ARE public figures. Better not say anything we aren't willing to stand behind at the very least. A statement made idlely or in jest could easily go viral and end up in thousands or even millions of homes...

On the other hand I think we should be protected from frivolous attacks by the Right as well.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Exactly. It's best to get proactive.

Especially when many of us were hoping that our free speech rights were the one weapon we could use to fight against the issues which oppressed us.

[lonestarnot]

12. So is GopperStopper2680 a public person?

And by whom is the judgment made?

[flvegan]

3. No. It's far more simple than that.

Here's the rule, ready?

Don't post anything on the internet that you don't want read back to you in a court of law.

It's a play on the old mafioso advice (I think it was Gotti, but I'm not sure) of "don't say anything out loud you don't want played back to you in court"

I don't know if this meets what you're talking about completely as you seem to maybe have two distinct topics/solutions open for discussion.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. That doesn't take into account the issue, which addresses

frivolous lawsuits. If you read up on SLAPPs, you'll see that you could write everything down honestly, and back it up, but someone with resources can still try to take down a whistle blower by saddling them with unnecessary legal procedures.

The answer to that is have your legal network in place before it happens.

Because DU may be indirectly inspiring individual activism, it seems a natural place for such a discussion forum, because it is a discussion forum.

[flvegan]

7. Actually, it does.

Lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise happen. Be it civil or criminal, if you have an aversion to having what you've posted on the internet read back to you in a court of law, don't say it.

If you have a "legal network" (whatever that is) in place, then govern yourselves accordingly. Individual activism, as stated is individual. It's no collective. Do YOU have a lawyer v. do WE have a lawyer.

I'm not trying to stifle discussion, I'm just injecting reality.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Is that the advice you would give a whistle blower? Or more to the point, are you supportive of whistle blowers?

[flvegan]

9. Yes it is.

And I'm very supportive of whistle blowers. I'd just suggest they have counsel lined up. Know what you're getting into before you get into it. Not everyone can handle that sort of push back, unarmed.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. So...you would stop someone from starting a forum

where people can begin to get information about their legal options? That just doesn't make sense.

Personally, I think such a forum would be a great place to brainstorm ideas that would make it easier to help whistleblowers. For one thing, whisleblower protection currently only applies to employees in the workforce. This should be extended since there's all kinds of corruption, especially in Florida. And, especially, in the real estate industry. Wouldn't you agree?

For example, take the Florida Bar. They won't even begin an investigation into lawyer wrongdoing without a complaint. But who in their right mind would turn in a politically connected politician to the Florida Bar, when nobody believes that the Florida Bar is objective about lawyers? Especially the politically connected ones?

So, the answer is, if any agency refuses to begin an investigation without a complaint, they should be required to provide whistleblower protection or immunity.

I would like to think that DU is more than just a social chat room. It can also be a place for progressive ideas and activism.

We all like to complain about the corruption in Florida, but nothing is going to change until we smooth the way for people who have information that can help bring on positive change.

[flvegan]

11. No, I wouldn't.

I wouldn't stop anyone from doing anything. I'd just tell folks what reality is. This isn't about whistleblowers, nor Florida. It's about the internet and how it can ultimately be leveraged against...us.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. So you would understand why someone would like to make

the effort to improve our odds, in case that card is played by the other side.

It's called being proactive.

[Yo_Mama]

5. I think that is a good idea. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Thanks. Appreciate that.

I'm really surprised how we're all flying blind here.

[lonestarnot]

13. No.

No verifiable credentials even if anonymity is foregone by the user, unauthorized practice of law on the intertubes is against the law. Laws vary from state to state, what happens in Chicago, may not be what happens in Arizona! I can ASSURE you of that much. AZ practices dumbfuckery in its legilative process.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. This is absolutley NOT the practice of law.

This is a forum to discuss experiences and exchange information, like links to sources. What happens in Chicago and Arizona is relevant as secondary sources. People understand that.

In time, DU might attract advertisement fees once it's recognized that there's an interest.

[lonestarnot]

18. Too edge of the red line for DU. We do not want legal problems for DU.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. You can't avoid it.

If DU has matured, maybe it's something the Admins will consider.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I don't think we're 'public figures' - from your link:

Examples of Public and Private Figures
...
Roger Clemens: Public Figure or Limited-Purpose Public Figure (Roger Clemens is a well-known athlete and likely to be considered a public figure; at a minimum, he would be a limited-purpose public figure as to issues involving sports.)


Local expert on teen suicide: Limited-Purpose Public Figure (The expert would be a limited-purpose public figure because she has distinguished herself in this particular field.)


Church pastor who decries abortion: Limited-Purpose Public Figure (The pastor would be a limited-purpose public figure because he thrust himself to the forefront of a particular controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issue.)


Local grocery store manager: Private Figure (Individuals who do not qualify as public officials/figures or limited-purpose public figures are private figures.)

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures

We do not become public figures just by posting on a discussion board.

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:

A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

DU is no more part of the media than Facebook is. I don't think that most of the developed world have become public figures.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Thank you. That's helpful.

I'll try to find the article that I was reading at the time I was dealing with the jury issue and repost.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. I think I found the article that concerned me.

If I'm reading it right, there are only three states where we need to concern ourselves with. Here is the article. I skimmed it and didn't find the exact line, but it came close. It could be part of a larger article:

http://debmcalister.com/2011/04/01/how-to-invite-a-lawsuit-over-your-blog/

[libtodeath]

19. Might be a good idea since there are whole websites

the right has funded to spend hours watching DU and then lying about what is posted here.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. I wonder what it takes to start up a forum?