PDA

View Full Version : Legal liability and posting on Calguns


hoffmang
08-17-2006, 5:24 PM
All,

I want to make sure that certain myths get busted here on CalGuns.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation or EFF has an excellent FAQ and overview of what liability posters, moderators, and message board owners legal exposures are.

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-overview.php

Let me give you a couple of highlights.

First of all, most all of the people we would otherwise mention by name are so called "Public Figures." As such, they do not have the privacy rights that the average person does. Being an expert in a televised clip or being a senior official of a state agency would certainly qualify as being a "Public Figure." If you google me you will quickly figure out that I have little right to privacy in much the same way.

Second, there is a very interesting type of lawsuit called a SLAPP. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Our analysis here of California Gun Laws is clearly Public Participation. Suffice it to say that should a suit be filed against any of us, the Anti-SLAPP provisions in California law are likely to provide broad safe harbor and a recovery of legal fees against the filer of that lawsuit. See: http://www.casp.net/mengen.html

Also, for those of us with Homeowners or Renter's insurance, call your insurance company and get an umbrella liability policy. You will find that millions in liability coverage is relatively cheap. $1M will do fine and is generally the minimum you can get. To make it clear, if you get sued, your insurance company pays the attorney to defend you and if its a SLAPP, the attorney get paid back and so does your insurance company.

Finally, there is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It basically states that you are not responsible if someone else posts on your blog or message board. This is especially important for Mods. Sleep well at night guys. Lots of tasty info on this in the EFF FAQ - http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php

What you can not do. You by law can not state an incorrect fact about an identifiable person, public or private and not recant. Opinions are not facts. However, even this maxim slides on a scale based on how public the person and how political the speech in question is. That's why people who call a sitting President really nasty factual things aren't actionable.

Now, this leaves good taste. I want to be on record here that just because its legal doesn't mean its right or a good idea. I don't want people to think that I'm advocating posting bad taste items about personally identifiable folks.

Call your insurance broker, and sleep well at night knowing that your insurance will defend you against all comers as long as you state opinion, correct facts, or publicly acknowledged incorrect facts.

-Gene

M. Sage
08-17-2006, 6:28 PM
Nice. This should get a sticky.

artherd
08-17-2006, 10:11 PM
You also may not out an under cover opperative (generally, with restrictions).

Conversely, (generally) a government entity may not censor free speech.

Dont Tread on Me
08-17-2006, 10:19 PM
Good post. There are other freedoms beside the RKBA that we are in danger of loosing and the ability to discuss public figures is one of them we seam to be loosing on this board.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-17-2006, 10:51 PM
If you google me you will quickly figure out that I have little right to privacy in much the same way.-Gene

Is this you??




“Compassionate Listening”

and other writings by Gene Knudsen Hoffman,

Quaker Peace Activist and Mystic" :D

[taken from: www.westernquaker.net ]

hoffmang
08-17-2006, 11:12 PM
Quaker Mystic... no...

Artherd - A government entity can not at all even threaten based on free speech. If some agency or a private actor associated with an agency threatens you, you can sue for a Declaratory Judgment action in Federal Court and possibly recover damages for violation of your civil rights. As much as the Second Amendment isn't respected in California, the First is.

Also, message board related political speech has a lot of deep pocketed backers from all political sides here in California...

-Gene

Sig226
08-18-2006, 12:59 PM
So, you are confirming what most of us are aware of. (Anyone that runs any type of public forum/blog has read up on this.)

Now the question is--WHY WHY WHY is Calguns.net so WATERED DOWN now?!


I can't believe the AR/AK FAQ is missing... I didn't notice it until this post. (I've read it a few times, and have it saved locally.)


This isn't helping CALifornia GUNners. WTF!?

I truely hope Ramon gets this squared away, or transfers calguns to someone (some group) willing and capable to maintain a free flow of communication and ideas. (Including for sale items!)

devjunk762
08-18-2006, 1:47 PM
Answer -> www.gunscal.com

grammaton76
08-18-2006, 1:59 PM
So, you are confirming what most of us are aware of. (Anyone that runs any type of public forum/blog has read up on this.)

Now the question is--WHY WHY WHY is Calguns.net so WATERED DOWN now?!

Strict liability is one issue, and that's not so much a concern.

But in a state that siezed a bunch of OLL's because they had "auto" markings (and, to my knowledge, still has not returned them), lawyers and frivolous charges are a tool of the trade. It's my understanding that Ramon has credible concerns about being targetted by lawsuits meant solely to harrass him and force him to spend money on defense.

xrMike
08-18-2006, 2:25 PM
After assessing the risk to my personal fortune, I think I'll spend the money on more ammo instead. :D

Fjold
08-18-2006, 3:08 PM
After assessing the risk to my personal fortune, I think I'll spend the money on more ammo instead. :D

So, you're going to buy two boxes? :D

zatoh
08-18-2006, 3:25 PM
I can't believe the AR/AK FAQ is missing... I didn't notice it until this post. (I've read it a few times, and have it saved locally.)
The FAQ is still there. You just have to find it it! (check "resources")

sac7000
08-18-2006, 4:21 PM
I can't believe the AR/AK FAQ is missing... I didn't notice it until this post. (I've read it a few times, and have it saved locally.

The FAQ in all it's holiness....

http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

hoffmang
08-23-2006, 9:14 PM
Strict liability is one issue, and that's not so much a concern.

But in a state that siezed a bunch of OLL's because they had "auto" markings (and, to my knowledge, still has not returned them), lawyers and frivolous charges are a tool of the trade. It's my understanding that Ramon has credible concerns about being targetted by lawsuits meant solely to harrass him and force him to spend money on defense.

This is why everyone here should have liability insurance. A nuisance suit or the threat of one will trigger your insurance company. They will aggressively and happily defend you because they're likely to get their money back. If it is responding to a threat, you'd be amazed how certain folks in Sacramento change their tune when the signature at the bottom of a response letter has Esquire after it.

The people issuing these threats are public servants. We the public need to hold them accountable to their bosses and remind them that if they don't want to be public figures they should get out of the public's business. Getting them fired is a good strategy as well.

I'm doing my part and hopefully I'll have some more interesting news soon.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
08-23-2006, 9:22 PM
Strict liability is one issue, and that's not so much a concern.

But in a state that seized a bunch of OLL's because they had "auto" markings (and, to my knowledge, still has not returned them), lawyers and frivolous charges are a tool of the trade. It's my understanding that Ramon has credible concerns about being targeted by lawsuits meant solely to harass him and force him to spend money on defense.

So a moronic marking of AUTO on a receiver that has no AUTO SEAR hole just above the selector hole gets lowers stolen ?

I'm very surprised the owner of those lowers hasn't filed charges with the county jurisdiction where the receivers were stolen.

Or have they?

Why would someone take that kind of abuse from the state government.

Theft is theft no matter who does the stealin.

grammaton76
08-23-2006, 11:32 PM
So a moronic marking of AUTO on a receiver that has no AUTO SEAR hole just above the selector hole gets lowers stolen ?

I'm very surprised the owner of those lowers hasn't filed charges with the county jurisdiction where the receivers were stolen.

Or have they?

Why would someone take that kind of abuse from the state government.

Theft is theft no matter who does the stealin.

I believe it was Wes at 10% who had his lowers stolen in this manner. I could be wrong, though. And apparently you can't press criminal charges against LE if they're holding stuff for "investigation"...

artherd
08-24-2006, 12:05 AM
Sam, the DOJ still has $50k+ worth of recievers from one of the FFL-based group buys that I helped organize. I've got $500bux in limbo when my 2 lowers were grabbed along with the rest.

The premise for the siezure? "The gun safe at the FFL was (probally) too small..." I even have this in writing.

Out of respect to DOJ, I am giving them the oppertunity to settle the matter (return my property, qty 2 lowers.) both lawfully and timely, before going public with gory details.

mikehaas
08-26-2006, 2:55 PM
This is some really great information, hoffmang. Very appreciated.

Mike