Hacker News Reader

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me:

> I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter) on wading neck-deep into the grey areas of the law where I firmly believed that my actions were positive. Whether or not he's creating liability for himself shouldn't be your concern.

True enough. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the person who blindly follows this advice, and the liability being created for people giving him advice is a close second.

Plus there's the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, by any stretch.

Further, like you, I'm quite comfortable with what I've said, and I am supremely confident that no liability has attached to me in this discussion.

The claim that he's trying to protect me from such liability is a rationalization. His real intent is that he's offended that someone is talking about legal issues and he want's to shut it down.

If that weren't his motivation, why lie and claim I was giving legal advice?

I think what you're missing is that he's not lying. What you're doing could be construed as giving legal advice, with the way US laws work. That doesn't mean he's right, but I doubt he's thinking "pfft, of course it's not advice", thus lying about it. You guys may differ in opinion, but he's not lying.

Honestly, you guys are talking (screaming) past each other on about a dozen things here. Please, step away from the keyboard. Cool down. Think it through and then if you want to from there, engage in a rational discussion. Both of you are doing a disservice to this thread.

> You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

You keep asserting this repeatedly without citation (and are now doing so in a separate HN post you made on the issue). Kindly cite cases where damages have been successfully litigated around someone posting friendly advice in a web forum.

I have mentioned several times that I have firsthand involvement with unsolicited advice being given on the Internet resulting in consequences for people. I am simply not legally permitted to talk about it, nor will I say if I was the person found legally responsible.

Remember, a liability does not require a law, and there are such things as torts.

then find a case you aren't involved in? can't quote one of those either?

So your professional legal advise is to stop giving legal advise? Are you serious?

> Let me respond point by point:

I wish you had.

>An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it.

Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition "implying that you personally are not qualified to give it."

Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I am, is a dishonest characterization of the argument, akin to claiming I'm not qualified to beat my wife and therefore should stop.

The fact that I'm not actually beating my wife means that your dishonesty about this is an attempt to characterize me in a derogatory fashion. Thus, personal attack as well.

>Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular.

Glad to have you on the record admitting that your intention is to block productive discussion.

>Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.

It is a simple fact that you have been completely dishonest about my remark. You have been characterizing it dishonestly from the beginning, and when I pointed out that I wasn't claiming what you said I was claiming you evade the fact that this proved you to be lying by claiming those were "weasel wordS". Yes, exactly the point of "weasel words" is to emphasize that you don't know all the facts at hand and you're providing possibilities. Which, in fact, shows your claim that I am giving legal advice to be a wholesale fabrication.

You should be ashamed that you are willingly and proudly derailing a conversation whereby a poster to HN might get some advice for how to solve his problem of finding legal council.

Notice that I was attempting to help him get legal council, not giving him legal advise that would render such council unnecessary as you claim.

So, you have lied about what I have said, you have admitted trolling, and you have evaded every counter argument I have made to the point where all you're left with is "fuck you".

I suggest you consider -- just for a second-- the fact that everything I've said is true, that you went off the handle at me for the "crime" of trying to help someone, and that the entire basis for your admitted attempt to derail this thread is false.

I wasn't giving him legal advice, I was trying to help him get enough info to get a lawyer interested.

Shame on you for opposing that!

You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. That's fairly transparent in your reply. Multiple people have told you that you are giving legal advice, and suggested that you stop, and pointed out how I am correct, and yet you're sticking to your guns that I'm a troll.

I can't even begin to attack the amount of stupid in this comment, so I'm cutting my losses, adding your name and company mentally to my personal blacklist for doing business or hiring, and getting out of the thread before this consumes even more of my time.

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset.

I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population.

I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including this last missive.

What I cannot fathom is why you feel so compelled to prevent productive discussion that you would impeach your own integrity with a lie? Or why, having never supported that lie, failed to provide even a single quote from my post showing me giving legal advice?

Or why, having had this refuted repeatedly you are sticking to your guns. Surely an understanding of logic must compel you to recognize that you cannot provide any evidence of me giving legal advice, let alone attaching liability to myself.

I think its hilarious that your thesis has that lawyers can say "this is not legal advice" as a disclaimer but non-lawyers cannot. But maybe I'm wrong? If you're right, you should be able to provide evidence. You have never done so, as you have never done so for any of your claims.

Again where you have an opportunity pursuade me by providing evidence you choose not to. Hell, even if I rejected that evidence you could have more confidence in your own position.

Why have you not even meet such a low bar for evidence as that, yet you feel comfortable characterizing me?

I am having to guess that you are not equipped to engage in logical debate. I'm curious as to why this is, and why this seems to not be uncommon on HN. I don't observe this phenomena among people of my age group.

----

Responding to your deleted response:

Here's what you actually said: " you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go"

All of which is false. Making your claim that the disclaimer is toothless irrelevant. Further, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

You did give legal advice, dude. Here's some legal advice for you to protect yourself in the future, a disclaimer you can place before you do something similar in the future: "The following [X] is/are not legal advice. It/They is/are intended as background material for use in preparing to knowledgeably discuss the situation with the lawyer who will be representing you in this matter."

I know for a fact that this language is sufficient in the Sixth Circuit. YMMV, but a disclaimer is a very handy way to shield yourself. Jsprinkles may disagree, but I've seen and handled cases in which disclaimers were the only thing saving someone from a ruinous malpractice suit for stuff they posted online (or published).

No, I agree, I just think relying solely upon a disclaimer is dangerous. I certainly respect your take more than my own, though, as you do it for a living, and I'm definitely paying attention.

For those of you watching this unfold and wondering what "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" means, check this clip (from The West Wing) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk/

(I would also like to say that this is in no way legal advice and should only be used as background material in research) I had to :)