If your original intention was to delete the comment and ban the commenter then you should still do that. You have made it perfectly clear that you are NOT doing it due to the legal threat. It seems silly to actually defend a legal action when he is trying to make you do what you would have done anyway. I agree that you don't want to be seen to be "giving in" to legal threats. But again it seems very clear that you are only doing what you were intending to do anyway.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this threat can even be carried out. Obviously the offended party has over-reacted.

Sometimes you have to pick your battles, especially in such a new area as Blog Law (blaw?). This one doesn't seem worth it.

Au contraire, Simon. It is important to that people who should know better see this kind of threat treated with the absolute disdain and ridicule it deserves. IANAL either, but bullshit is bullshit and needs to be treated as such.

Some people are way too full of themselves. Figures it was one of the Barking Moonbat patrol.

/ranting

I don't knuckle under to threats; I delete comments that are insulting because I don't think they're nice, not because I feel I have a legal obligation to do so--and I don't want to establish a precedent that I believe I have such an obligation.

Morally I find calling someone a chld molester repugnant, but then again, morally I find barratry repugnant too.

Delete the comment and ban the troll. “What hill do you want to die on?” There are good battles to be fought and this doesn’t seem like one of them to me. It is bullshit but to answer it with a crusade is just elevating a dick slamming contest to a level it doesn’t deserve.

I think that being full of it is a minimum requirement for all of us who post at Dean's World.

I'm sure you'll survive this. But to avoid future trouble, here's some (probably unimplementable) advice.

1) Check out anyone and everyone permitted to post on your website, by personal name. Find an online database of licensed attorneys. Automatically bar anyone whose name matches the database.

(That's a little like my suggestion to get rid of all the Arabs from the United States, guilty of terrorism or as innocent as a baby's ass. You won't have to worry about terrorism, in the one case, or threats of lawsuits, in the other case. I make it a practice to stay away from attorneys in all matters except probate cases, where you have no option.)

2) Post a prominent notice around your website that you, Dean Esmay, assume no responsibility for insults, nasty language, threats, outright lies, slander, libel, bad judgement, or bad grammar and bad syntax in materials that anyone posts to your website.

3) If you must deal with attorneys, find at least one of them whom you can trust. Then use him to sue the shit out of any other attorney that threatens you. They probably have more to lose than you do, both legally and financially, and I assume they avoid situations in which they impel their victims to retaliate against them.

I don't know any more than you do whether any of the above would work in practice. If we lived in a just and equitable world, it would work well. But the last time we lived in a more or less just and equitable world, Thomas Jefferson was playing his violin in his study, writing a declaration of independence (but, not to be ignored, fucking his presumably beautiful slave girl). (So even then it wasn't just and equitable.)

If nothing else, the aggravation over all this will help you lose some weight. Maybe without even having to give up Polish sausages or working your ass off at the local fitness center, in whatever you are able to find for spare time.

Anyway, good luck.

Oh, and if they screw you over, don't invite these particular specimens to your birthday party this year. Some of the guests might just want to dump their bodies in the Detroit river.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Delete the comment and ban both posters.

I'd second Jerry's idea. Neither TBP or MBA are interested in enlightened, or civil, conversation, and would therefore contribute nothing to the blog. Get rid of them both.

While Mr. DeMent put it pretty succinctly, I'd hate to see another child molesting attorney getting his way.

I look at it this way. He got kicked off--excuse me invited off another blogsite I have regularly read before I found this one for similar negative content. I suspect the gentleman has a problem.

Ban them both works for me, if we're advising craven capitulation. Ban TBS for being an asshole, ban BMA for being a jerk.

Delete the comment, ban all child molestors and attorneys (on the outside chance that there may be an attorney that is a child molestor and you can't chance having them comment here or you might be sued by the victim of molestation.) Hope I helped.

Catch 22,

Yes, it is true that Pieter Friedrich kicked me off his website. Pieter had this bad habit of selectively deleting comments he disagreed with.

Donald Sensing invited me to leave his web site, which I did, although I continue to read it every day.

Do what we say in 72 hours or else...

Where else have we heard that line recently?

i'm no lawyer and it's not me being threatened, but I say ban both commenters and leave the comment.

Ban ‘em both and to hell with ‘em!

(Oh, and Arnold: your suggestion wouldn’t have stopped Mr. Padilla, who was a terrorist, but wasn’t an Arab...)

Joel,

I only post as a guest. I do not know anyone personally. I acknowledge Mr. Dean full rights in terminating any ability of mine to comment be they positive or negative. I think that is what the blogosphere is about. It isn't about threat nor intimidation or lawsuits or any of that stuff. I come here to relax and blow off steam and intellectualize and tell others they are full of malarkey. So I think you might chill out and perhaps consider apologizing. You are an intelligent, educated man and you can make snarky remarks or straight-laced ones. But I think you have hurt some people and you might acknowledge that.

Catch 22 -

Doesn't have anything to do with Joel anymore, does it? Moonbeam is threatening Dean! It's about Dean, damn you - DEAN!

Delete both comments and ban neither unless they offend again; then don't bother to ask. Some lawyers, like some cops, have no sense of humor.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you could be sued for. You don't control what's posted in comments as they appear [although you can delete and ban], so it's not you who are making the comments.
Its not libel [its not published, strictly speaking] or harassment [if anything, he's harassing you, Dean. Slap the countersuit] or defamation of character [because this is not a 'matter of record' and as such couldn't be taken as evidence of child molesting activities], nor do the parties know each other except by crossing paths on a blog comment thread.

One could make the case for it under slander- but you've just posted, in an equally clear free-speechy way- that you do not support or believe the 'accusation' and you have engaged your readership in acknowledging the facts of the spate. You're being responsible for it, in other words; you may not have to do anything more than you already have.

Now, it would be entirely different if TBS or Dean had endeavored to produce evidence of BMA's child molesting activities, manufactured or otherwise. To me, I think its steam. & no, IANAL

I'm not licensed in Michigan, so I cannot dispense legal advice to you, but I don't see much by way of a cause of action here. There certainly wouldn't be in my state.

Likely as not BMA just thinks he can intimidate you. As annoying (and childish*) as that is, I think Mr. Kindall's advice is the wisest course. You were going to delete it anyway, as the first commenter noted. You know that, and so do we. Besides, if BMA does sue you, you'll be out of pocket whatever it costs to defend yourself and, since he almost assuredly doesn't live in the same city as you, even a summary dismissal could put you out of pocket more than your description of your finances suggests you can easily manage. And more than this twit is worth, that's for sure.

And, Dean, please ignore these people who suggest you ban all attorneys. The vast majority of us you never hear anything about (because we aren't being unconscionable pricks) don't deserve to be punished for the crimes of the minority who give us all a bad name. ;-)

* Note, please, BMA, that I said "childish," not that other thing that got under your way-too-thin-for-the-legal-profession skin. You can't even think about suing anyone for my saying that; truthfulness is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. Grow up - or, if you can't do that, shut down your computer, go upstairs, and complain about it to your mommy. She might have some sympathy for your precious little feelings.

Dodd,

I have no objections to you calling me childish.

urthshu,
what I understand he is being sued for is not removing the offensive comment; he is the only one who can do that.

That said, it is pretty silly. Unless BMA is well known as BMA and his real name, and the comment is likely to cause him real trouble, I can't see it going anywhere.

I would delete the comment; it is pretty offensive. I would send a note to TBS, saying "you are warned" and a note to BMA, saying I'm sorry it happened, but please next time, just ask. But that is my way (and my suggestion.)

In terms of the blogging world; I do see it as problematic if speech is curtailed and feared. I see nasty comments all the time in blogs. I don't like them. I try and steer away from that anger, but it seems the norm for the blog world, so if you join it you have to accept how it is.

Dean--

Like everybody else in this thread, I am not a lawyer either. However, I did take journalism law and I believe urthshu's 12:31 post is quite wrong.

While you do not control what is said, your policy is to delete libelous or similar comments--a policy, by your own admission you have not followed in this case. Right away you're in a tough spot there.

You are in a sense a publisher. No newspaper in its right mind would publish a letter to the editor where someone was accused of being a child molester. You are in the same boat. If the accused was identified by name (I can't tell from your report)--essential for proving libel--then he may have a case. Get that crap off your site!

Even though you're judgement-proof the said moles.. er, lawyer can still make your life miserable. Why go through the aggravation?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to offer you legal advice. I'm just going to say what I would do, just as a matter of course. I would delete the child-molesting libel, shoot the writer a nasty e-mail about it, and put a post at the top saying that it is ordinarily your policy to delete such things ... and that the attorney's threat had nothing to deal with.

What it really comes down to here is whose rights you want to defend. Do you want to defend your right to allow somebody to call another person a child molester? Do you want to defend one person's right to call another a child molester?

If you choose to be bullheaded and fight this, then, in my opinion, you're not really going to bat for your own rights. You're in the position of taking the heat for something idiotic that somebody else said ... is that really the right you want to defend?

IANAL.

That being said, there's recent cases where ISPs have been found not responsible for communications that are out of their control that pass through their services unbeknownst. I'm not sure I'd count on that as a bullet-proof indemnity, though. In the case of blogs, once you know that there is libelous material (and don't think that Internet material isn't legally "published") on your site, you might find that it is your responsibility to correct any errors that are brought to your attention (no one else can do it).

Talking to a lawyer is the best idea (although they may not have a clear answer either, as this is developing law). While the plaintiff may not be able to get much money from you now, if they do get a judgement, that's enforceable against future earnings unless you declare bankruptcy. Pkus they may be able to shut your blog down.

Whether such a suit is worthwhile is questionable (and this is one of the reasons Usenet and such are so free-wheeling), but you never know what sets off some people's fuses.

But on top of it all, if you do find a libelous statement on your blog, it's really the right thing for you to do to remove it when asked. No point in you becoming an accomplice to a bad act.

Once again, IANAL, so if you think you have a real legal situation that might relate to the above comments, you should consult one for a professional answer.

Dean, I'm a stubborn mule like you. Find a lawyer and fight. That's what "defending the liberal tradition" is all about.

(not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...)

Pennywit makes the best argument I think.

I just don't like being bullied. But I think I've made my point now.

Unless both 'posting names' are identified as to who they are...ficticious one insulting ficticious two is nothing.

Am I missing something here?

I'm QuantumThnk, do you really know who I am?

I think I need to know more.

I've gone ahead and removed the offending post--not, of course, due to lawsuit threats, but because it's offensive, period. I'm not bothering to ban anyone because it's only mildly effective and we're getting comment registration this weekend anyway, which should put an end to this sort of silliness.

I was going to remove some of the other offensive comments in that thread too (especially the "butt fucking idiot" comment from another guy) but I'm tired of playing Kindergarten Cop to such things. Saturday can't get here fast enough....

Unlike Joel, IANAL. Like Joel I am full of it. That post made me laugh. I am so full of it. But God forgives full of it, just like he forgives all my sins.

Yours,
Wince

My Gawd...BMA....get a fucking life.

Sorry for your woes, Dean.
I say pick your battles and this ain't one of them. Some moron in a comment section of a blog isn't worth your trouble.
Fight the GOOD fight, not one that is irrevelant.
BMA needs to get a few more dockets under "it's" belt and find another hobby or two. Or some clients to keep "itself" busy...
Sounds like BMA is a Civil Defense Lawyer to me. WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!

Wow. Am I the only one who realizes the implications of the fact that Joel was banned by Don Sensing?? That guy is one of the most tolerant, rational bloggers I've ever seen.

Sheesh...

BTW, Fresh Air, I had to study libel & slander as well, due to journalism requirements. Dean is pretty safe, especially when you factor in the precedents of ISPs. Dean is not a publisher in the sense that he vettes and then publishes each comment. He is, therefore, less liable than a newspaper.

Saturday will be a good day. My thoughts on this:

1) BMA's initial comment was a political disagreement, par for the course for a certain segment or quadrant of a spectrum.

2) TBS's smear (calling BMA a child-raper) was despicable and intolerable, deserving of a deletion if not a permanent ban -- and Dean would obviously have deleted it as soon as he woke up from his nap -- except that...

3) BMA just _had_ to immediately go and _threaten_ Dean and Rosemary, which turned this into an issue of submitting or not submitting to his bullying. It's the old principle: "You ask me nicely, fine. You threaten me, nothing doing, buddy." That's the way I do it, too.

And, so, now we had a long legal debate, Dean did what he was going to do _anyway_, and comment registration is coming Saturday. Bye-bye, trolls.

PetsWarehouse Lawsuit, if you've forgotten.

Haven't. :-)

Do whatever you think is best with both the comments and the commenters, irrespective of any lawsuit threat.

I would take the threat of a lawsuit about as seriously as someone who threatened to kick your ass, Dean. It's just a bunch of noise and big talk unless they've got the balls to actually show up on your doorstep - and in that case, I'm sure you'd be able to demonstrate what a huge mistake they've just made.

You can't prevent anyone from suing you. Even after deleting the comment, "BMA" could still sue you if he was so inclined. Catering to people who threaten lawsuits doesn't get you anywhere nor does it protect you in any way.

As long as you're within the bounds of the law (and I think you are here), the appropriate time to worry about a lawsuit is when and if you actually get served with papers.

Well, Jerry Kindall and I have had a few minor spats here on Dean's World, but I think very highly of Mr. Kindall's intelligence and acumen, and I agree with his recommendation.

Glad to hear you've deleted the offending remark, Dean— in some abstract sense it might be worth standing firm, but in practical terms it probably ain't worth it. However (à la Mr. Kindall) I do think you should've banned both TBS and BMA.

Then again, I'm far less tolerant of trolls and troublemakers than you are. On my own site (which is a personal website and not a blog) my policy is, I never explain myself, I just silently delete and ban. On other sites where I'm a guest (e.g., Dean's World), my policy is, I choose my fights very, very carefully; I don't let the other person dictate the terms of my encounter with him; and where I smell a troll, I either stop taking him seriously and have a little fun with him at his own expense ("If they can't take a fuck, joke 'em"), or else I maintain radio silence and quietly watch the mudwrestling from the bleachers.

However, if comment registration helps take care of these matters, then all's well that ends well.

Hey, don't ban *all* attorneys. Some of us aren't BMAs.

My vote is to ban the BMA (for general trolling and threatening) and either warn or ban TBS as your mood desires. To me it seems the offensive comment was over-the-top, obviously ridiculous, and in bad taste. The BMA's comments meet those above standards, plus a threatening attitude. Lose the waste of oxygen, we'll all breathe easier and return to our normal ruckus.
Since you say you have already deleted the TBS statement, even if I disagreed with that action (and don't necessarily) it is your World, Dean.

As you've deleted the comment, it's probably all moot now, but you were probably in the clear on this one. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A 2003 9th Circuit decision summed it up this way: "Through this provision, Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party. As a result, Internet publishers are treated differently from corresponding publishers in print, television and radio." Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc..

Without getting into the details it's pretty clear that Dean is an interactive computer service provider under the Act. Although most of the odious CDA was struck down, Section 230 was not.

Note: I am a lawyer, but don't practice this area of law, and I am not giving you legal advice. So there.

For future reference, Dean, while fund raising in general to cover your website costs is probably futile, if you ever were faced with a lawsuit like this, I am certain that your readership, and readers and providers of other blogs would rally to fund your legal defense.

General fund raising is always difficult. Give people a cause they can rally behind and your cup runneth over.

Kim raised over $4,000 in less than 36 hours for his adopted soliders when they said they needed new and better scopes for their rifles.

Americans, and freedom loving people everywhere, will put their money where there mouth is, when you have a real need and a good cause.

Its moot by now, but hey I have free advice to dispense.

Take the high-handed approach. Email TBS and BMA asking them to apologize and publically retract their statements. After all, they have both offended you, the first by spitting on your floor, and the second by a gratuitous threat. If they don't, then ban them from this website and Rosemary's. After this is done, delete the comments of both replacing it with the note "deleted due to idiocy.".

Tadeusz

This sounds a lot like the harassment Justene (Calblog) got over Infoscam. Fight it tooth and nail.

As you probably know, IAAL, but I'm not licensed in Michigan. However, if you do have to hire an attorney who is, I'd be more than happy to help him/her out for free to help keep your bills down. I'll bet Justene will pitch in, too, and draft half the Bear Flag League if need be. Don't take this one lying down.

Meanwhile, my non-legal advice is to ban TBS and BMA from the site, but leave up the comments at issue. It wouldn't hurt to add a comment of your own, briefly explaining why this TBS's comment wasn't deleted, even though comments like it ordinarily would be.

Laws on blogging and libel aren't completely clear, yet, as blogging is a relatively new development. Maybe Dean wants to be one of the test cases.

Joel, the more you threaten, the more of an a-hole you make yourself look. Stop digging before you can't climb out of the hole you've dug.

Rhesa,

I'm not in any hole whatsoever. He chose to keep the matter alive, so I am complying.

Joel,

He deleted the comment. So your threat and complaint is now moot.

He is perfectly within his right to find out if can protect himself from legal blackmail and that is what he is doing.

So,

Rosemary, now you are alleging that I am engaged in the criminal endeavor of blackmail. You really do want to keep this alive.

No, Joel, she is alleging that you engaged in the unethical behavior of threatening a frivolous suit. Assuming, of course, that you are the individual Dean referred to as "BMA." Are you? Are you also this Joel Thomas, or someone else? We'd better be clear on that, as it sure would suck if someone were to report the wrong Joel Thomas to the wrong state bar.

Xriq,

It would suck if you reported the wrong person to the state bar. I am surprised that you would make it more difficult for Dean by printing irrelevant information. It would probably be best for your link to be deleted.

I've had it. TBS was a scum, and his comment was properly deleted. But BMA _still_ wants to bully Dean and Rosemary with his legalistic threats, which makes him one too now. Ban the both of them, I say. Go ahead and sue me.

Yep, as I said, ban this troll. His presence adds NOTHING to the debate, and his threatening behavior is childish and pathetic. Anyone else recall seven-year olds telling each other their daddy would sue them for their little boo-boo's?
Oh wait, registration starts tomorrow, right?

Since the other thread got hijacked by this, um, Kool-Aid, lets turn this one back to the original question, on the original thread.

How fast, how hard and how vehemently should John Kerry push Micheal Moore away?

I feel somewhat responsible, because, when BMA put out his irrelevant piece of flame-bait, I bit. (Note to self: Do not be suckered by flame bait. Keep your own irrelevant hot-buttons under control. On this blog, with this many readers and commenters, digression does not help.)

Yours,
Wince

John Kerry should push Michael Moore away in the same proportion that George Bush pushes Pat Robertson away.

Joel, you didn't answer my question. It was a simple question, which calls for a simple yes/no answer.

Xriq,

I made it clear that your link is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Seems pretty clear to me.

Too bad. In that case, I agree that deleting the link would probably be a good idea. I'm sure Dean knows which bar to report you to, if he's so inclined.

[Note to Dean: as I mentioned on Rosemary's blog, I don't recommend that course of action. If you're going to do it, however, just do it, don't threaten. Threats may be intepreted as an attempt to blackmail. Just because JT/BMA does it, doesn't mean you can.]

Joel:

In words recently immortalized by our Vice President, "Go XXXX yourself!"

Joel,

Still irrelevant, and a non-answer too. Irrelevance: Pat Robertson has vanished from national prominence. Non-answer, so answer this: And how much should George Bush push Pat Robertson away?

I say Kerry should push Moore away now, hard, and with passion. He could call Moore, "The American Spectator of the left" and point out how destructive their vendetta against Clinton was to America. I'll bet he could be passionate about that! It would look very Presidential.

Yours,
Wince

Arnold Harris is right. You indeed "assume no responsibility for insults, nasty language, threats, outright lies, slander, libel, bad judgement, or bad grammar and bad syntax in materials that anyone posts to your website." Do not delete the offending material. Or if you are worried, alter the post to censor out the offending comment. Using "#####" works well, of course I am not keen on censorship.

I once ate an entire fried horses hoof for breakfast.

RAD:
"I once ate an entire fried horses hoof for breakfast."

Sounds interesting. How did it taste?

I'm not keen on censorship either. I'm against it. But a blogger deleting comments on his own blog and/or banning obnoxious commenters is not censorship. It is more akin to banning trespassers or keeping your neighbor from dumping his trash in your backyard. A blog is private property. A blogger has the absolute right to decide what goes on his property or not. Censorship is when _the government_ (or a snotty lawyer) tries to shut down a blog because it (or he) doesn't like what the blogger is saying.

As to Pat Robertson: he is an ugly totalitarian creep, an American ayatollah, who wants to imprison homosexuals and I totally oppose him. He is my enemy. I will do everything I can to keep him and his like from taking over America.

I do not fear Michael Moore. The Left is impotent and can only snarl in impotent rage against "imperialist AmeriKKKa". The Left cannot rule. The only question is: Which kind of Right will rule?

Comment registration should be in place over the weekend, although there will be a transition period since we are moving hosting providers at the same time.

By the way, I won't be deleting or altering any more comments, either on this old weblog or the new one. People say what they say.

What an asshat, for two reasons.

First, Joel Thomas is an asshat because Joel Thomas has perpetuated the stereotype of lawyers as threatening ridiculous lawsuits at the drop of a hat. Thanks, Joel Thomas, for once again lowering the public's view of our profession!

And second, Joel Thomas is an asshat because he just is. An incredibly asshatted asshat.

Dean, you do what you think is right and we'll all back you up. Personally, I'd ban the asshat Joel Thomas, and would probably leave up the comment, but you know what's best for you and your site.

This strikes me as a fitting reaction to Mr. Thomas.

And it's completely legal.

Yours,
Wince

What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

a doberman

My point exactly.

Thank you again Joel Thomas.