Thursday, May 31, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Blogging as an intervening variable for stupidity
Jonathan Saltzman has a front-pager in the Boston Globe about an unusual court case in which blogging factored into the denouement:
It was a Perry Mason moment updated for the Internet age.Saltzman suggests that thiscase is indicative of how blogs can impact, you know, real life. And there's a grain of truth to this charge. Reading on, however, one begins to wonder if blogs are not the cause per se, but rather one of many enablers for people with poor impulse control:
Lindeman, a graduate of Yale University and Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, is board-certified in general pediatrics and pediatric pulmonary medicine, according to the Natick Pediatrics website.So, lessons learned:
1) If you're a defendant in a court case, try not to blog about it;More blog reaction from Suburban Guerilla, Michael Froomkin, and HubBlog.
[Might there be more of a correlation than you're letting on? Perhaps people with poor impulse control are more likely to blog?--ed. There's something to this, but blogs are merely one of many new forms of personal expression available to people. If the blog is not the outlet, perhaps the MySpace page, or the podcast, or the YouTube moment will be. Still, I leave this possibility to commenters -- who clearly have no problems with impulse control.]posted by Dan on 05.31.07 at 09:28 AM
"Mulvey had telegraphed that she was ready to share Lindeman's blog -- containing his unvarnished views of lawyers, jurors, and the legal process -- with the jury"
I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that most of this would be admissable. In particular, comments about the jury would seem to be both irrelevant and prejudicial.
That said, the rules of evidence are complex enough that blogging about a lawsuit you are involved in is a bad idea unless you are prepared to pay a lawyer to review your postings before you put them up.
"The next morning, on May 15, he agreed to pay what members of Boston's tight-knit legal community describe as a substantial settlement -- case closed."
I'd guess that Flea didn't agree to this--his insurance company did. Flea's blog may have played a role in the insurance company's decision, but I would point out that correllation does not prove causation, especially when you are dealing with only one data point.
http://rpz3zmr75a.com >Googleposted by: pmhel on 05.31.07 at 09:28 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: