OT/ A legal question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>I have a legal question for the attorneys on the board.<br /><br />If I were to post something in a thread on a chatboard that could get me in trouble and it can be traced back to my computer, then I can be held responsible (liable), correct?? I mean, each computer has a unique IP address, right??<br /><br />How about, if someone else has access to my computer and they post something and it can be traced to my computer, can I still be held responsible?? I mean, it is my computer but THEY wrote the message. <br /><br />How about if I were to dictate something over the phone to someone else and they used their computer to enter what I wanted to say? What if I even had them sign my name to it?? Would the person who entered the message on their computer and posted it on the chatboard get into trouble or would the person who dictated what was said get into trouble??<br /><br /><br />Just wondering,<br /><br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Without looking at all of your scenarios one by one the easy answer is: <br /><br />You are legally liable for anything you put into writing, even on a public chatboard. <br /><br />All of the other things you mentioned would involve proving who said what...otheriwise, absolutely everyone is responsible for what they say. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Potentially, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I was going to answer but now that the Judge has, no need.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>So, if this JP Cohen thing were to blow up into a criminal investigation, would Leon be in trouble for posting what Mr. Fogel wrote?<br /><br />I will give a hypothetical. Say Memory Lane is investigated in three years, five years, 10 years or whatever and JP Cohen is arrested for theft, fraud, money laundering, etc. In the investigation, the authorities find this board and ask questions about people who have dealt with Mr. Cohen and Memory Lane and someone mentions Mr. Fogel and the post he wrote, praising all the fine attributes of Cohen and his company.<br /><br />If the authorities go back and are able to find it, they will see that Mr. Fogel did not post the message but Leon did. The authorities can prove this by the unique IP address associated with Leon's computer.<br /><br />Again, my question, would Mr. Fogel get into trouble or at least have his reputation tainted because of this or would Leon be the one on the hook?? <br /><br />I assume Fogel is a defene lawyer, 1) because of the amount of money he is able to spend on cards and 2) because he is indifferent to Cohen's criminal past. Seems a prosecutor would have a problem with Cohen's said past. Any way, back to Fogel and his reputation. If he knowingly associated with a convicted felon and also wrote a glowing tribute about him and then Cohen is arrested, wouldn't that sulley Fogel's reputation?<br /><br />Would Mr. Fogel be investigated by his states' Bar Ethics Committee? Or has Mr. Fogel protected himself from any trouble with Cohen by dictating to Leon what he wanted to say and then having Leon post it using his own computer?<br /><br />See, I have a real problem with why a high paid and highly succesful attorney would not post a response to this board himself. I mean, he obviously has an opinion of Cohen and wants that opinion out in the public but he doesn't write it himself. He takes the time to call (I assume long distance) and dictate what he wants said to Lean and then Leon has to post it.<br /><br />Just wondering why,<br /><br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>There's a fine line between making "statements" that are false, versus expressing an opinion, which may be flawed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p><a href="http://www.fkwlaw.com/Bio/MarshallFogel.asp" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.fkwlaw.com/Bio/MarshallFogel.asp</a><br /><br />(And no that is not our FKW)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Now that I see this mess is associated with the Memory Lane stuff, I hope this thread disappears off of the first page with that other thread...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>P.I. lawyer I see. <br /><br />well, David, in response to your most recent post, I don't believe Fogel has exposed himself to criminal liability. Is that what you meant by Fogel getting "into trouble?"<br /><br />Simply posting on a message board attesting to someone's reputation doesn't lend itself to any liability, in my professional opinion. <br />Additionally, I imagine it would be relatively easy for Leon to prove that Fogel originated these comments. Leon said Fogel emailed him. Let us assume that our moderator, in his infinate wisdom, saved the email. That should suffice.<br />Does that answer your question? <br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>david, i've worked with lawyers for 15 years and been a member of this board for about 4 years...just my guess but it sounds like you are asking for trouble. i think you should contact leon and/or the others in an email and not in a post, even it you mark it O/T...sorry, but thats just my opinion.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>First of all I am just a little tired of defending my helping a friend put a post up but so be it. I have emails to the effect that all of those were Marhshall's words and I am sure he would verify that. Here is the federal law for anyone that wants to read it:<br /><br /><br /><br />The Bloggers' FAQ on Section 230 Protections discusses a powerful federal law that gives you, as a web host, protection against legal claims arising from hosting information written by third parties. <br /><br />What is this "Section 230" thing anyway? <br />Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230). It was passed as part of the much-maligned Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech (and, with EFF'S help, struck down by the Supreme Court), but this section survived and has been a valuable defense for Internet intermediaries ever since. <br />What protection does Section 230 provide? <br />Section 230 says that "No 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." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers." <br />How does Section 230 apply to bloggers? <br />Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs. <br /><br />Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...." <br /><br />So if you are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability. But we believe that Section 230 should cover information a blogger has selected from other blogs or elsewhere on the Internet, since the originator provided the information for publication to the world. However, no court has ruled on this. <br />Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content? <br />Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise, if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may not qualify for the immunity. <br /><br />The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230. <br />Is Section 230 limited to defamation? <br />No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography. <br />Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do? <br />Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>Many times Leon has posted Scans for Marshall Fogel, so this is consistent with past behavior. To accuse Leon or Marshall of anything here about who did the writing goes against all previous behavior of those 2 people. <br /><br />Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Thank you for the responses. <br /><br />I am just trying to answer some questions I am having trouble with and figure things out. Why? So that if I ever do have money to again start buying cards that I want, I will know who I want to deal with and who i prefer not to deal with.<br /><br />Taking into consideration that FKW is tired of all of this, Cobby is bored, someone else thinks I am stepping into troubled waters and Leon is upset, I will not post on this subject again.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Rich,<br /><br />I was not accusing anybody of anything. I was just wondering why someone wealthy and successful would dictate a glowing confessional over the phone so as to have someone else post it.<br /><br />I mean, if it were my Grandmother wanting to say something to someone using E mail, I can understand that. If it were posting pictures of cards or memorabilia to the board and either not knowing how to do that or not being able to because the size of the picture was too big, I can also understand that. Heck, I know how to post pictures to the board but still have trouble uploading them or getting the size small enough for the server to handle. But a successful attorney?<br /><br />Any way, again, this WILL be the last time I post on this subject,<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Marshall Fogel (or Leon) being liable for posting a testimonial about a guy? Please. ANd here I thought you were worried about being liable for your OWN posts. That might be a legitimate concern based on some of the things you have written.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Yes, I am bored with the Board in general, but did not mean to lump you (and some others) into that category. In this thread, I tried to give you some information that might be helpful to your inquiry.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>For his own legal security, Leon should avoid posting for others, unless the post is benign. There's no good reason why an individual can't post on this board for himself anyway. <br /><br />I know of an art online newsletter moderator who was sued for including a libelous piece sent to him by a reader. The moderator didn't write it, edit it or necesarilly agree with it, but was sued for 'posting' the information ... On a board like this, if indviduals sign in and post for themselves, they are pretty much taking the responsibility for the text. If Leon himself posts for others, he might be taking some responsibility ... It should be noted that the art newsletter piece was obviously potentially inflamintory, with (apparently false) accusation that someone owned Nazi looted art. The moderator wasn't sued because he posted a reader's request for directions to the 7-11.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Thanks for the law lesson. Trust me, I know my rights and I am no more liable for posting Marshall's full, unedited email (it wasn't that I scribed it, he did) than you being liable for what I am posting here. I will continue to try to help friends and the board...as that's what I enjoy doing. In retrospect I guess I could have saved myself a headache had I coached him through it. All that said if he asked me to do it again I would..Just like I would for anyone else...take care

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Uh, Leon, I am not an attorney (obviously) and I don't even play one on TV. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />But seriously, thanks again for allowing me a place to vent, ask questions and learn more about old cards.<br /><br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Sorry, my post was directed at Cycleback, who is David Rudd, not yourself....You are always welcome to vent here.....