City Council Can't Take Blogger Criticism And Resigns?

from the there-has-to-be-more-to-this-story dept

Dave W alerts us to a story in the UK of how (allegedly) 11 city council members in a small rural town resigned from the council after getting annoyed by a local blogger criticizing them. Dave notes that the blog in question isn't too bad, but also notes that such city councils are often staffed by people who do the job because no one else wants to do it. Still, if you're going to hold some sort of public office, at some point you would think that you would learn how to take some criticism. It makes me wonder if there's really more to this story beyond just a critical blogger and thin-skinned council members.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IAB Takes On FTC Over Silly Blogger Disclosure Rules

from the good-for-them dept

While more disclosure is generally a good thing, the FTC's new guidelines for blogging disclosure have some pretty massive problems, and probably aren't legal. As more and more people are recognizing this -- and interviews with the FTC folks in charge of this suggest they either haven't put very much thought into this issue or they don't quite know how the world works outside of their government cocoon -- the backlash is growing. Now, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped in with quite the open letter to the FTC, asking them to scrap the rules, while noting (snarkily) how impossible they are to follow, in practice:

So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed -- which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog -- a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the "post" button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.

I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.

While this may seem silly, it really does highlight the problems with the FTC's rules. They're totally unclear and absolutely could concern things like this. Getting a free book here or there happens all the time -- and the FTC actually claimed that if people don't return them, then they may face sanctions. That's ridiculous. Last month, we ran a fun contest for people to win free copies of a Kevin Smith book. If the winners from our comments mention that book anywhere online, do they need to mention they got the book for free? If they mention it to a friend, do they need to do the same thing? Because most of the time when posting stuff online, people really are just talking to their friends.

Again, it's not clear why people can't just sort this out themselves. People who post bogus reviews of things because someone pays them to, or because of something "free," are going to get called out on it eventually and lose their credibility. When people talk amongst friends, they don't reveal where they got the products they talk about, or if they happened to get a promotional sample -- and that's fine. While you can understand where the FTC is coming from, it really has gone overboard with these rules.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Unemployed? Blogging? Don't Put Ads On Your Site Or You Might Lose Your Unemployment Check

from the well-how-about-that dept

For quite some time, many people credited part of the rise of blogging to the fact that many folks in the tech industry found themselves out of work in the wake of the dot com bubble bursting. Suddenly there were lots of tech geeks, who were always online and had stuff to say -- and now plenty of extra time to say it. It didn't take long for a whole slew of tools to pop up to make that happen, and voila, blogging revolution. I'm not sure I really believe that story, but there have been some suggestions that the current financial crisis my lead to something similar, with the unemployed speaking up online. Except... you might not want to do that if you're unemployed and in New York. Forbes is reporting that a lawyer's unemployment benefits were greatly reduced, because his blog earned about $1/day in ad revenue. The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new "employer" who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an "investigation" into her "business" -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75).

It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force. Reading through the story of this lawyer is not at all surprising. While most of our employees are in California, we've had employees in a few other states, and none of them seem to know how to deal with the idea that people in their state might work remotely for a company in another state. Just last week, we were dealing with one particular state, where we had an employee who hasn't worked for us in nearly two years -- but the state insists we still owe taxes for him and on our "office" in that state, for every day since he no longer worked for us. We've written letters, filled out forms, spoken to people at the local labor department -- and all to no avail. Every couple of months, they send us an updated statement insisting we still owe them money for someone we haven't employed in ages. All of these labor departments are designed based on an old model whereby there was a big company that had a presence in the state, and employed people. They can't handle the idea that someone might work remotely or that people might make some other income from a blog or other source. One of these days, perhaps they'll update their systems, but until then, it's just a bureaucratic nightmare.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Problems With The FTC's New Disclosure Rules: Free Speech And Liability Problems

from the disclose-everything dept

I've already noted my general problems the FTC's new disclosure rules, but as others look into the details, the worse they seem and the more you realize the unintended consequences may be pretty bad. Jeff Jarvis makes some key points concerning how this could be seen as a restriction on free speech. And that's because the FTC seems to be viewing blog posts as if they are media, rather than straightforward communication. As we've pointed out in the past, for many, blogging is often no different than a conversation. It's not journalism. It's not reporting. It's having a discussion with people:

Second, the FTC assumes -- as media people do -- that the internet is a medium. It's not. It's a place where people talk. Most people who blog, as Pew found in a survey a few years ago, don't think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism. I imagine that virtually no one on Facebook thinks they're making media. They're connecting. They're talking. So for the FTC to go after bloggers and social media -- as they explicitly do -- is the same as sending a government goon into Denny's to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed.

As such, you could make a case that the new rules are an unconstitutional law hindering First Amendment guarantees on freedom of speech. As I noted originally, it seems like these things get sorted out in the marketplace of ideas -- whereby those who do something so stupid as to sell their "views" on things face the potential of a substantial loss in credibility. But suddenly demanding people reveal the sourcing of some product they mention in blogs leads to all sorts of silly results, amusingly mocked by Mark Cuban in a blog post, where he wonders what sorts of disclosures he'll have to make if he mentions a breakfast at IHOP where the managers comps the breakfast. And while he's mocking the overall situation, it's not so silly. You shouldn't have to confer with your lawyers to figure out how you mention any particular product, just because you got a freebie or a sample somewhere.

And, what's really scary? It appears that even the FTC isn't sure what the policy actually means, and hasn't thought through any of the unintended consequences or fuzzy borders.

Separately, Eric Goldman highlights another massive problem with the new guidelines that no one else seems to have picked up on yet: that in some cases it's the company providing the product that will be liable -- ridiculously blaming the company if a blogger makes claims about its products that are not true. As Goldman points out, there's no way the FTC would be successful in going after companies for that, as Section 230 clearly would protect the advertiser from bogus statements by someone else. But, even assuming that the FTC never considered the Section 230 issues, why would the FTC ever think it's reasonable to fine an advertiser for statements made by someone else?

Despite tons of feedback and discussion when the FTC first proposed these new rules a few months ago, it really feels like no one at the FTC put much time into actually thinking through what these sorts of rules would actually mean in the real world.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Frugalista! Frugalista! Frugalista! Now... Where's My Cease And Desist?

from the this-is-getting-silly dept

The term "frugalista" is apparently quite popular, such that the word has even been defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. There are a bunch of bloggers who write about "frugal living" who refer to themselves as "frugalistas." It was a nice little community... until a trademark claim entered into the mess. William alerts us to the news that a blogger (who established her blog long after the word was in common usage) has trademarked the term and is having her lawyer send cease-and-desist letters to other bloggers who refer to themselves as frugalistas. A US News reporter asked the woman's lawyer how it could possibly make sense that she could go after people who used the term before her client did, and the lawyer's response was:

"they all have to stop now."

Except... no. That's not quite how trademark works. But, once again, in a society where people think they get to claim ownership of whatever they want, we end up in silly situations like this. Hopefully the threatened bloggers are able to stand up to the bullying frugalista. Who knew that living the frugalista lifestyle included trademark infringement suits?

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Troll Tracker Case Settled... So When Can Frenkel Start Blogging Again?

from the pretty-pretty-please... dept

We'd already noted that it seemed like an uphill battle for the lawyers in Eastern Texas to prove defamation claims against the "Patent Troll Tracker" Rick Frenkel, and last night the judge chose the high bar of an "actual malice" standard to determine if Frenkel was guilty of defamation. With such a high standard, it seemed exceedingly unlikely that the plaintiffs could win a case, so perhaps it's no surprise that the two sides agreed to settle the case before it went to the jury. While no one knows the details of the settlement, Frenkel and Cisco issued an "apology," and I'd guess not much more, if anything.

But, really, all that's besides the point. The real question is whether or not this means Frenkel will start blogging again. Some of his statements in the past (and having to go through this entire ridiculous process) suggest that he may not blog again. However, I'm hopeful that he'll get back to it, though obviously not anonymously any more. His work in highlighting some of the more nefarious actions of patent system abusers is still sorely missed.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Getting Access To Competitors' Presentations Claiming To Be An Indy Blogger Corp. Espionage?

from the blurring-lines dept

One of the things that many conferences are struggling with these days is the question of how do you handle "press passes" for events. In the past, it was easy: there was press... and there was everyone else. But these days, when anyone can become a publisher of their own blog or other site, where do you draw the line? I know I've had discussions with conference organizers who fret over the issue, and generally decide on a rather ad hoc basis. But Glurbie alerts us to a story that takes the issue to an entirely different level. If you're a blogger... and you get a "press pass" to an industry (or competitor's) event as a blogger, rather than as an employee of your company, at what point is there an ethical lapse?

In this story, a spokesperson for Boeing, who also writes for a defense contractor blog, went to an industry event under a press pass for the blog, rather than being listed as a Boeing employee -- and then sat in on various presentations by competitors. That second link notes that this probably falls short of real corporate espionage (which the original link above raises), but does certainly raise some ethical questions. There is a suggestion that most people in the room probably already knew the guy worked for Boeing, but it still seems odd not to admit that fact.

While there's some effort to pose this story as a question about "blogging" (and Boeing is apparently reviewing its blogging efforts and thinking of shutting down the guy's blog), I'm really not sure it's a "blogging" issue at all. The real issue is one of disclosure. The guy didn't disclose who he worked for when that could have been rather relevant.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger

from the someone-should-explain-the-first-amendment dept

Last we checked in on David Coursey, a long-time tech columnist, he was claiming that The Pirate Bay made money selling subscriptions to users and didn't seem to understand the difference between "theft" and "infringement" or the difference between a search engine and a user. So... I guess we shouldn't really be all that surprised that he's about the only person around who seems to think it was a good thing that a court forced an anonymous blogger to be revealed for referring to model Liskula Cohen as a skank. Apparently, Coursey is unfamiliar with the fact that the US has a strong history of protecting anonymous speech as a part of our First Amendment rights, and this ruling seems to go against that entirely. And, yes, you can be unmasked for truly defamatory speech, but calling someone a skank hardly qualifies. And, of course, he doesn't even acknowledge the fact that almost no one would have seen that particular anonymous blogspot blog if Cohen hadn't freaked out and sued.

It's difficult to see how that makes her a "hero." Thin-skinned? Short-sighted? Perhaps. Hero? Please.

Oh yeah, Coursey then goes on to suggest this should be a warning sign for Google to start censoring the blogs it hosts:

It should also make Google take a hard look at the kinds of sites its Blogger service is willing to host. A "Skanks of NYC" blog may give jealous people a chance to vent their frustration, but hardly seems to ennoble the human spirit.

I don't know. I think Coursey's column should make PC World take a long hard look at the kinds of columns it's willing to host (and, one imagines, pay for). A David Coursey column may give a clueless tech columnist a chance to state his opinion with little knowledge of the facts or history, but hardly seems to ennoble the human spirit. (And, yes, I'm joking, but the point is that this is almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as Coursey suggesting Google needs to monitor and censor blogs).

By the way, the Coursey column does reveal that the anonymous blogger was revealed to Cohen, and it was some woman she didn't know (big surprise there). So, I'm curious how this is a good thing for anyone involved or how Cohen is somehow a hero. If she ignored this site, no one would have seen it or cared (and those who saw it wouldn't have thought that it was some sort of NY Times report on the skankiness of Liskula Cohen). They would have dismissed it as a lame venting from someone who didn't like Cohen for whatever reason. But, now with a lawsuit, lots of people aren't just questioning whether or not Cohen is "a skank" but about her rather sensitive reaction to the slightest criticism from a nobody. How does that make Cohen better off?

128 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Says Blogger Who Called Model A Skank Should Be Unmasked

from the anonymity? dept

US courts have generally been pretty good at protecting the anonymity of online speech from forced exposure -- in fact, as we're posting this story, we've come across yet another ruling protecting anonymous speech online. However, every so often a judge goes in the other direction. Earlier this year, we wrote about a case involving a model, Liskula Cohen, who was so upset about a blog that had a grand total of four posts insulting her, that she filed a lawsuit to uncover the anonymous blogger, claiming that it was defamatory to call her a "skank." Of course, most of us would never have heard of the blog, its posts, Liskula Cohen or that anyone thought she was a "skank" until this lawsuit was filed. But that's another issue for another day.

However, CitMediaLaw alerts us to the news that the judge in the case has ruled that calling Liskula Cohen a "skank" is potentially defamatory, and not just an opinion or an everyday insult, and thus the blogger should be unmasked:

But Madden found that use of the terms "skank," "skanky," "ho" and "whoring" defamed Cohen because they appeared in captions near photos of the model in provocative poses. "Under these circumstances," Madden wrote, the words combined with the suggestive photos "carry a negative implication of sexual promiscuity."

Madden also rejected the blogger's contention that the words were vague insults. "In the context of this specific blog, such words cannot be reasonably viewed as comparable in meaning and usage to the word 'jerk' or any other loose and vague insult," Madden held.

While certainly not the most high brow of insults, it's difficult to think that anyone reading the blog posts in question would take from it that it is somehow factual that Cohen was actually sexually promiscuous. I would imagine that the very small number of people who actually saw the site would conclude, accurately, that some unknown, anonymous blogger didn't like Cohen very much and posted a very small number of silly blog posts about her. And then they'd get on with their lives. Hopefully, the still (for now) anonymous blogger decides to appeal. Yes, the speech may have been nasty and obnoxious. But that doesn't warrant the gov't and Cohen forcing the blogger to be revealed.

74 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Arrested For Blogging About The Police?

from the where-do-you-draw-the-line dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting this story about a blogger who was effectively arrested for blogging about the police, raising a series of free speech issues. As the article notes, the woman hardly makes for a sympathetic symbol of free speech rights. She appears to be a racist supporter of segregation and also seems to have an obsession with the local drug enforcement task force, posting all sorts of information about what they were doing and who was on the task force. But the question is whether any of it actually broke the law. What led to her arrest was posting home address info -- and a photo of the home -- of an officer on the task force. However, as the article linked above notes, that information was gleaned from public sources that anyone could have looked up had they chosen to do so. Making that a crime doesn't seem to make much sense. The police didn't even charge her with obstruction of justice, but with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass." The problem is such a law is so broad, it raises serious First Amendment issues. The woman isn't exactly a model citizen, but it still seems like a stretch to arrest her for revealing information that is already public.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Irony: Columnist Who Berates Bloggers For Not Fact Checking, Didn't Fact Check

from the whoooops dept

A month ago, we wrote about a column by Connie Schultz, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, supposedly talking up a a plan to change copyright law to better protect newspapers from "parasites." This was a dumb plan no matter how you look at it, and Schultz ended up in a battle of words with Jeff Jarvis that kind of derailed the actual discussion on the plan itself. As we noted recently, the brothers behind the plan, David and Daniel Marburger, contacted us (well David did) to let us know that Schultz had totally misrepresented their plan. So we took a look at the full plan, and, indeed, Schultz's column was simply wrong in describing their plan. While we still think the Marburgers' actual plan is misguided, Schultz's write up of it was not at all accurate.

Schultz summarized the Marburgers' plan like this:

• Aggregators would reimburse newspapers for ad revenues associated with their news reports.
• Injunctions would bar aggregators' profiting from newspapers' content for the first 24 hours after stories are posted.

Neither point is actually in the Marburgers' plan (and, it's important to note that the Marburgers are only talking about a very, very narrow range of "aggregators" which I don't even think count as aggregators). They talk about sites like The Daily Beast, which is a competing publication more than an "aggregator." They make it clear that they think real aggregators like Google News are only a good thing. Also, they flat out do not suggest a 24-hour block makes sense:

1. We do not advocate a statutory 24-hour moratorium on rewriting news reports originated by others. Like you, we'd vigorously oppose that.

2. We do not think that linking to originators' news sites, as Google News does, is bad; on balance, we think it's good for any news originator.

So why bring this up again? Well, it seems Schultz can't leave well enough alone, and has to poke "bloggers" again as being some sort of anti-journalists. In her most recent column she talks up how real journalists fact-check and "citizen-journalist" bloggers do not:

The so-called citizen journalism of most blogs is an affront to those of us who believe reporting and attribution must precede publication.

Fact-checking is tedious; it often derails juicy rumor and deflates many a story.

So... um... why is it that she got her facts wrong and it was blogs that published the full story on the Marburgers' plan? Meanwhile, it was her high-minded colleagues at the Cleveland Plain Dealer who brushed off all the criticism of Schultz by declaring: "It's really a bunch of pipsqueaks out there (on the Internets) talking about what the real journalists do."

In the end, we have an original story that Schultz continues to stand behind, despite it being incorrect. You have a number of bloggers who have been digging into the details, and posting thoughtful analyses of the Marburgers' plan -- while the folks at the Plain Dealer brush them off as "pipsqueaks" who don't fact check? Yeah, that's credible...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not one of those who thinks there's some sort of war brewing between "mainstream media" and "bloggers." I actually find the whole concept silly. Blogs are simply a publishing platform. Some use them for journalism (including many mainstream media publications). Others don't. Lumping them all together makes no sense. But pretending that old school journalists have some sort of higher ground to stand on just because they work for a publication that prints itself out on paper doesn't make much sense to me.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Says No Right To Being An Anonymous Blogger

from the wow dept

While there are certainly many problematic US laws, the fact that our court system recognizes and values the right to anonymous posting as a First Amendment issue is something that's quite wonderful. Tragically, very few other countries view things the same way. The UK has been especially bad when it comes to not protecting any rights to being anonymous, and the latest news is no exception. A UK judge has required the unveiling of an anonymous police blogger, claiming blogging is "essentially a public rather than a private activity," and thus, there is no right to anonymity.

In this particular case, the anonymous blogger was a working police officer, writing about daily experiences, and often taking strong opinions that could potentially get him in trouble. Now, some of us would think this is exactly why his anonymity should be protected, but the judge seemed to interpret it in the opposite way:

Mr Justice Eady said the blog contained opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.

He added Night Jack had expressed strong opinions on matters of political controversy and had also criticised a number of ministers.

The judge said the blogger risked disciplinary action if his employers found out one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way....

Rejecting the argument that all the blogger's readers needed to know was that he was a serving police officer, the judge said that it was often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source.

"For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment.

"More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by 'insiders', it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is."

This is troubling for any number of circumstances, especially in that it will certainly present quite a chill on people speaking out freely and anonymously on supposed problems within their workplaces. That seems a lot more dangerous and troubling than allowing this guy to speak anonymously, where readers were free to weigh the legitimacy of the information knowing the guy wasn't posting under his real name. Of course, it will come as no surprise that, now that the blogger has been identified, he's been disciplined by the police force. So much for encouraging any sort of public discussion.

Update: Lots of good points in the comments that weren't entirely clear in the original article. The specific details in this case were somewhat different, which changes the story significantly. The blogger in question had actually been identified by a reporter, and had asked for an injunction against that reporter revealing who they were. Under those circumstances, we actually have to agree that there's no right to demand anonymity if you've been outed through other means. There should be a right against the gov't forcing you out, but having individuals figure out who you are is an entirely different matter.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

South Korean Economic Blogger Acquitted (For Now)

from the phew dept

Earlier this year, we were quite troubled by news reports out of South Korea, concerning a (formerly) anonymous blogger who had been arrested for his financial commentary online that had been so good that it moved markets. He was charged with "spreading false rumors," when in reality the problem was that the info he was spreading was pretty accurate, and that was the problem. But, the good news is that he's now been acquitted, as the court noted that there was no evidence that the guy intended to spread false information, and that he appears to have believed the content he was writing. Of course, the case may not be over yet, as many expect the government to appeal.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Fines Blogger $1.8 Million Over Defamation... Despite Many Questions

from the this-is-not-good dept

We recently posted a link to a libel guide for bloggers, recognizing that many bloggers don't realize their comments are subject to defamation laws. That said, however, it's still quite rare to find a blogger found guilty of libel in court. Mark writes in to alert us to one such case that raises a number of very troubling questions: a court in South Carolina awarded a $1.8 million libel judgment against a blogger, despite questions about whether the guy in question actually wrote the blog post. The court ruled in summary judgment, which really should only occur if the facts are not in question -- but they are very much in question. The guy who was accused claims he didn't write the content (even if he agrees with it). The blog itself appears to be a semi-anonymous group blog, so there's no clear indication that the guy being fined actually wrote the content. You would think that this fact, alone, would preclude a summary judgment and require a trial. There were also issues with actually making sure that the guy was given proper notice about the lawsuit and the court proceedings, so he was not present at some of the hearings. As the link above notes, this ruling is quite chilling if you write a blog.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Topical, Polemical And Short: Twitter? Or American Revolutionary Pamphlets?

from the don't-knock-it dept

Just as we're seeing the various naysayers of any popular new communications technology come out swinging against Twitter, Rick Klau does a nice job reminding people that this is nothing new. With every new form of communication, people freak out about how there's no "rules" and that some people are using it for bad things or (worse!) mundane things. Rick points out the following quote to prove his point:

"Twitter is a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive, and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and "high-brow" than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals. At the same time, since Twitter is always short, it can be produced much more quickly than a book, and in principle, at any rate, can reach a bigger public. Above all, Twitter does not have to follow any prescribed pattern... All that is required of it is that it shall be topical, polemical, and short."

The quote comes from Pulitzer Prize winning historian Bernard Bailyn... except that's not the actual quote. Rick simply replaced pamphlets with Twitter -- as the original is talking about the use of pamphlets in the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and how they helped spread ideas. Yet, today, as then, people will complain that the content is "currilous, abusive, and seditious." Every time I see someone complain about how Twitter (or blogging) is somehow not valuable because of all the crappy, boring or mundane content found via those platforms, I simply wonder why the complainer follows crappy, boring or mundane Twitter users and blogs.

On top of that, the question of content being banal or mundane is really in the eye of the beholder. For example, many people point to Twitter messages about "what someone's eating for lunch" to show how useless Twitter can be. Yet, for me, just such a message has resulted in me getting to meet someone who I might not have met otherwise. And the more that I've used Twitter, the more and more useful I've found many of those same "mundane" messages. It certainly may not be for everyone, but I find it amusing that some can brush off the entire idea as being useless when so many people (including myself) have found it to be tremendously valuable and useful, if used properly. Are those who are brushing it off assuming that the millions of people who find it useful are lying?

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Guide To Libel For Bloggers

from the useful-resource dept

There's a belief out there among some bloggers that they're immune to libel laws. That is simply untrue. While they are likely immune from libel in their comments made by others, things they write themselves are likely to still be open to potential libel lawsuits. Many bloggers don't realize this at all, assuming that "free speech" rights means they can say pretty much whatever they want. And, to some extent, some courts may take into account the nature of the "forum" in which the comments are made -- but by that point (in front of a judge) it's definitely way too late for many people. That's why it's great that the folks over at Public Citizen have put together a nice Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing With Libel in Mind. It's a worthwhile read if you write online.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cash4Gold Apparently Threatening Bloggers With Defamation

from the that'll-work dept

Despite getting plenty of attention for its Superbowl ad that felt more like a late-night-TV cable ad, Cash4Gold hasn't really been having a very good month. The company was caught when a representative (the company claims he was "acting independently") offered cash to a blogger if he would take down a negative review. Then some sites, including Consumerist republished a list of "10 confessions" from a former employee, who described what appears to be somewhat questionable practices by the company -- allowing it to live up to the letter of what it promises people, but not quite the spirit. The company, not surprisingly, denies all of this, and says you can't trust a disgruntled former employee.

However, now it appears to be accusing folks who reposted even part of the Consumerist post with defamation. Allen Harkleroad writes in to let us know that after he wrote about the Consumerist article -- basically linking to Consumerist and including just the opening paragraph of the original article, the company had its PR firm threaten him with defamation. You know that's going to backfire.

What's especially odd about this, however, is that on the company's own blog they have reposted the same content in an attempt to refute it. That is the best way to respond to it. Threatening defamation charges is only going to serve to draw more negative attention to the company. Why wouldn't the PR people direct bloggers to the company's response instead?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

'Blogging Won't Make You Money,' Says The Man Who Made Lots Of Money By Blogging

from the yet-another-mainstream-media-attack-on-blogs dept

It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say technology journalist Dan Lyons has a Schizophrenic relationship with blogging. In 2005, he penned Forbes' laughable cover story called "The Attack of the Blogs," but a couple of years later, he was uncovered as the author of the hilarious Fake Steve Jobs blog. Alas, it seems his love-affair with the medium has faltered. In his most recent column for Newsweek, Lyons has a real surprise for everyone hoping to retire on their Google AdSense income: "while blogs can do many wonderful things, generating huge amounts of money isn't one of them." Taking a look at some recent blogging layoffs and his own paltry advertising income as the anonymous impersonator of Apple's CEO, Lyons concludes that growing rich from blogging is a "fairy tale."

What's missing from Lyons' piece, of course, is the great success he experienced as a direct result of blogging. Not only did he receive a big book deal using the same Fake Steve Jobs character he created for the blog, Lyons has been invited to speak and write widely on the topic. Further, it's doubtful that his high-profile switch from Forbes to Newsweek was anything but augmented by his blogging success. While relying on traditional advertising may not be the most promising business plan - especially given today's market - blogging can and does serve as an integral part of the success Lyons and many others seek.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AP Gets It Wrong Again: Wants To Restrict Certain Reports To 500 Words

from the you're-not-bloggers dept

It seems that the Associated Press continues to struggle to figure out how to deal with this whole online thing. It's still trying to revamp its pricing structure after a bunch of newspapers canceled their contracts as they were pretty pissed off that the AP is effectively competing with its own member papers. The AP has also had a bit of a run-in with bloggers over its ridiculous fair use policies. Its latest move seems to, once again, be getting pretty much everything backwards. Famed film critic Roger Ebert is complaining that the AP has sent down word from on-high that all entertainment articles must be 500 words or shorter -- including film reviews, interviews, news stories, trend pieces and (best of all) "think pieces." Apparently, if you need more than 500 words to get people thinking, you're a bit too verbose. On top of that, the AP is asking those same entertainment writers to focus on more salacious, attention grabbing stories in picking what to write.

It's not difficult to see what's going on here. The AP is trying to be more "bloggy." Shorter, more attention grabbing pieces? Apparently, it's decided that people online only want to read the quick hits on salacious stories. Of course, despite what some may think, that's not really true. The AP has an opportunity to be better than all of that. It could draw serious attention by creating real content that people want, rather than running after the latest fad. But, apparently, that's not in the AP's plan. It has the resources to do what various small-time blogs can't do, but apparently, it's going in the other direction. Perhaps it's not too surprising, but it's no less a mistake.

Yes, short, attention grabbing stories get traffic, but that doesn't mean good, thorough journalism would get ignored. The problem the AP is having isn't that its stories are too long, or not attention-grabbing enough. It's that it still views itself as a gatekeeper of information, rather than an enabler of both news gathering and news distribution. Of course, with each misstep by the AP, others are quickly moving in to take its place.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Malaysia Stops Blocking Opposition Blog... But Arrests Its Founder

from the not-very-comforting dept

Over the last few years, we've followed the ongoing efforts of gov't officials to figure out the whole "blogging" thing. It started off poorly with gov't officials insulting bloggers and trying to pass a law that would have required all bloggers to register with the government. After that failed, the ruling party looked, for a bit, as if it might be trying to understand and embrace blogs. It set up an agency just to respond to blogs and even told certain of its own candidates for office that they needed to blog themselves. However, apparently it was the opposition party that embraced blogging much more -- and even a few of the bigger name bloggers got themselves elected. In response? The government demanded that ISPs block certain blogs, including the very popular Malaysia Today.

The latest news is that the government has rescinded the ban... but has arrested the site's founder. That doesn't seem like the best way to get bloggers on their side. It never fails to amaze me why politicians seek to shut up those who oppose them. What's wrong with actually responding and letting people understand the multiple positions? If you're confident that your position is the correct one, then why not convince people that's the case?

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..