Investigative Journalist Claims Her Public Tweets Aren't 'Publishable;' Threatens To Sue Blogger Who Does Exactly That
from the hubristupidity! dept
Update: In case this isn't enough, there's a follow up to this story, as Teri Buhl is apparently not a fan of our writeup.Choose your battles carefully. This warning/advice is more relevant than ever in an era of instant feedback, social media and thousands of pages of "relevant results" microseconds away. Here's a small story of how not to deal with a problem caused by your own actions.
Mark Bennett, a Houston criminal defense lawyer, was recently pointed in the direction of a rather inexplicable statement attached to a Twitter profile. Teri Buhl, an investigative journalist specializing in Wall Street, has this wording on her profile page:
A friend of Bennett's (@gideonstrumpet) asked, "What does that mean?" Buhl replied:
Gideon sensibly replied "ok thanks. I don't know how you prevent that, though. I could write a post quoting you."
At this point, Buhl went "legal," responding that she would sue him because she "stated" her tweets are not "on record comments." And she certainly could, although one wonders who would take her case. Gideon asked for a few second opinions on the legality of Buhl's claim, and got answers from these two gentlemen whose names are likely familiar to Techdirt regulars, Marc Randazza and Popehat.
So, we have someone thinking their public tweets are private property, and therefore lawsuit-bait if anyone attempts to "quote" them. While Twitter's TOS assures users that their Tweets are their property, it's quite another thing to state something publicly and then claim you don't want it quoted. Would a retweet be a violation of Buhl's statement? After all, it's a "direct quote" originating from another account. What about embedding the tweet? Still a problem? Even if Buhl's claim wasn't baseless, she'd still have a hell of a time enforcing it. If you don't want something you said going public, why on earth would you use a very public platform like Twitter to say it?
It gets uglier from there, though. Buhl decided to continue her legal threats via email shortly after Mark Bennett posted screencaps of her tweets.
This prompted Bennett to do a little digging. For someone who's so concerned with retaining strict control of her information, Buhl certainly doesn't seem to mind throwing around other people's information -- even the contents of a teenage girl's personal journal.
A New Canaan woman police say posted personal and sexually explicit information on Facebook about her boyfriend's 17-year-old daughter was arraigned Tuesday in state Superior Court on charges of second-degree harassment, second-degree breach of peace and interfering with an officer.Here's how Buhl allegedly set about "publishing" someone else's much more private "statements:"
Teri Buhl, 38, of 81 Locust Ave., appeared briefly before Judge Maureen D. Dennis with her lawyer, Christopher W. Caldwell of Norwalk...
Buhl surrendered on Oct. 27 at New Canaan police headquarters after learning that a warrant had been obtained for her arrest. She was released after posting a $5,000 bond.
A look at the documents that led to the warrant and arrest tells a disturbing story of Web-based strong-arming and privacy invasion from a woman who knew her victim and attempted to disguise her own identity.As Bennett points out, it's apparently OK to publicly post information from a minor's personal journal, but not OK to post a public Teri Buhl tweet anywhere else on the internet.
New Canaan police Youth Bureau Commander Sgt. Carol Ogrinc said in an affidavit that the girl and her father, Paul Brody, came to police June 24 to report that someone using the name 'Tasha Moore' had posted personal notes from the girl's journal on Facebook.
The girl said she kept the journal in her dresser drawer in her bedroom, and that she wrote the notes shown on Facebook last April. The girl said she had replied to the e-mail address provided by Moore on her Facebook page, and had told Moore to stop posting personal information about her or she would contact police.
Moore reportedly answered that she welcomed the legal action and knew the girl's father was a corporate lawyer. Moore said she didn't think the girl would contact police because then her father would find out about the embarrassing information from the journal, according to Ogrinc's statement.
Buhl has finally done what she should have done a long time ago and taken her account private. This will likely be the end of this story as Buhl has probably realized she's on very shaky ground. (This belated tweet captured via her page at Muck Rack seems to confirm this.)
With a trial date set for March 22nd, she may not have time to fight another legal battle. Not only that, but if she's going to go after "republishers" like Bennett and Gideon, she's also going to need to free up time to go after less human foes like favstar, Topsy and yfrog.
Here's a suggestion: don't antagonize people by attaching implicit legal threats to your public profile. All it does is attract the kind of attention you don't want -- for instance, another public airing of your alleged illegal actions. It doesn't win you any new friends or followers and it certainly does very little to raise anyone's estimation of you. Instead, it makes you look like exactly what you are -- someone who's going to slip into "sue" mode at the drop of a tweet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: agreements, contracts, public information, quoting, teri buhl, tweets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mission Accepted.
Badge Earned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Achievement Unlocked: Douche on the Range.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me
Complete baloney, but they put it in anyway. And probably think it has some kind of legal weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
Is there really any reason to NOT include that blurb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
Sure, you might not be able to force the issue, but if you were to publish the information you gained fraudulently from such an email, I wouldn't be surprised if the company could take some form of legal action against you.
Remember, the Feds sent proof to al-Haramain's lawyers that they were being warrantlessly wiretrapped, and the Court did not allow them to use that proof in making their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
They'd have no legal basis to do so whatsoever unless you received the email due to wrongdoing on your part. If they just accidentally sent it to you, you can legally publish it as far and wide as you wish, regardless of the blurb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
> fraudulently from such an email
If someone sends me an email by mistake, I haven't fraudulently done anything. Fraud requires illicit action on my part. A merely receiving an email by mistake from someone else isn't fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
Then, I run a special electode-connected module program that's wired to my head, so I can erase the memory of what I read.
It's really standard procedure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
protection of a trade secret depends on taking reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy. What is "reasonable" is going to depend on lots of different things, but a confidentiality disclaimer and request to destroy the info adds a little bit of weight to the side of the scale showing "reasonableness."
Also, if the recipient is put on notice that the information was inadvertently provided and confidential, their action in distributing or capitalizing on the information is more likely to be considered "misappropriation."
That's one scenario. It's not too hard to think of others, but making blanket assertions that "you can legally publish it as far and wide as you wish, regardless of the blurb" is not quite right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
If you send me an email with a trade secret accidentally, then the onus is on YOU to contact me to prevent said secret from getting out. I have no obligation to keep my trap shut, for any reason. YOU SENT IT TO ME. It was UNSOLICITED; and like getting an unsolicited package in the mail containing (say) a widget that's a trade secret (or even unpaid for), it does NOT mean I HAVE to do jack shit about it, including not reading/deleting/disseminating/paying for it. The law on unsolicited mail is VERY clear: you send it to me without me asking for it, and what happens after I get it is up to ME, and if you don't like it, tough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
Here's an article on the topic. http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
I'm curious what law you are referring to that is "VERY clear" and says what you say it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me
Actually, no, it wouldn't be. If a trade secret is accidentally sent to the wrong person, that wrong person is in no way, shape or form required to keep the secret. Using it wouldn't be misappropriation.
The only way such an onus would fall on a person is if the obtain access to the trade secret through fraudulent or illegal means (or by agreeing to keep the secret). Receiving a misdirected email is none of those.
Then please do.
I believe it is. I don't mind if I'm wrong. I often am. I'd love to hear an example of how this is an instance of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biblical proportions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Permission Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not unusual
It's a really weird symptom of our time. It's unquestionably predatory. Thankfully they're getting easier to spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please remit your payment of $10,000 to the following address...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sociopathic Behavior
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
•Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
•Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
•Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
•Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
•Glibness and Superficial Charm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sociopathic Behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am dumb
And my vagina smells funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am dumb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What makes her an investigative journalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What makes her an investigative journalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete Buhlshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An off the record comment?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's weird to see a "professional" reporter (who's evidently trained well enough to have written for Forbes and The New York Post, etc., at that) act so hostile toward the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Me too, but she's not even the only person with that name on LinkedIn by the look of things.
"trained"
Maybe that's the problem. She's been told how to work in an industry and hasn't got the intelligence to work out that many of the rules have changed. A lot of journalists simply don't like the way the fundamentals of their industry have changed, and don't really understand how to use the internet. Especially in the era of social media where some people don't quite grasp that what they're saying is by definition public (and on Twitter especially, where you don't get the granular privacy control you get with Facebook, etc. - but then keeping things private is completely against the point of the service). None of that was covered in their journalism classes, so they prefer to ingnore the differences.
She, of course, has the option to merely not use Twitter if she doesn't like the way her tweets are interpreted and used, but her reaction does sound like someone spoiling for a fight rather than someone genuinely offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then read that Bennett, Randazza, and Popehat (Ken) are all mentioned too... shades of deja vu - Muwahahahahaha [this is an in joke for those not laughing]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/03/consternation-over-inability-to-copy-and-paste/id=3472 3/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I went there, read a bit.. started to fall asleep.. then thought "What the hey.." so I turned off Javascript (Yes minions! Bow down to my hacking prowess *rolls eyes*), copied the whole page via mouse select then pasted it into a text document.
Then deleted the document because that's all that post deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How stupid one has to be to waste money on something that everyone knows how to circumvent?
Here are other ways:
- Code:
- SHIFT+F10 (opens the context menu)
- CTRL+U(opens the source view)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
also I cheated and used a Firefox extension called QuickJava with nice icons that turns off/on JavaScript, Java, Silverlight, CSS, Flash, Cookies, Proxies etc when you click them ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DIAF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have a hard time seeing a "big entity" hiring dozens of people to MANUALLY copy and paste anything LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks,
Teri
teribuhl@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though it might be sometimes advisable to include a "jurno [sic] step" of contacting one of the individuals that third parties talked about it is not a requirement legally nor sometimes ethically if instead you are only talking about other news sources
TD is not a journalistic endeavour in the normal investigative sense instead it is a site designed to "analyze and offer insight into news stories" [From the about page].
I'm sure Tim would love to hear your side of any of this though maybe what you could also do is write your own response on your blog to Mr Bennett and let Tim analyse and offer insight on that instead. Or place a comment here as well stating your views.
Though even commenting on a story that is not painting you in a good light is a very positive, mature, and welcome first step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL, that ship has sailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A first step? Perhaps. It's 50/50 whether it's a first step towards giving her side of the story, or a first step towards asking how much libel insurance he carries. Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please await my E̶x̶t̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ legal teams' contact, at which time we will determine how much much to rip out of your butt. We promise to leave absolutely nothing.
Thank you for your cooperation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, this is an opinion blog, so there's neither "journos" nor indeed "print" here. It's also a very popular one, so it's probably not a good idea to put your email address in the body of your own comment since this will not only get picked up by spammers who mine sites like this for such addresses, but you're also inviting potentially more derogatory comments from people reading. People who will not have any connection to this site, but you've definitely invited them to email you.
In future, it might be better if you made comments without giving personal details, and also learn the nature of a site before you start using it. You can contact the site privately through the links at the bottom of the page as well.
Oh, and did you know your site's down right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
i put my 'anonymous' email eddress up here (and scattered all over the inertnet tubes), and get very little spam/etc...
not sure if it is because my ISP's spam blocker is good, or what... but the 'risk' of putting up your email eddress is overblown... i mean, to a large extent, it *is* out there already, putting it up another time or two on the web doesn't make you suddenly more vulnerable...
just sayin'...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, your email entry on this site is visible only to Techdirt. I can't see it. She pasted her email into the body of the comment itself, making it public to everybody reading the thread. I can speak from experience that making your email address public can be a risk, but I was also considering personal attacks from people reading this article as well - attacks she would no doubt blame on Techdirt although neither Mike nor the regulars her would be at fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: protip for holediggers...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You would get my vote for funniest comment, for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I am a psychosociopath who will stop at nothing to get what I want. If I'm being nice to you, you should watch your ass, because I'm about to rip something out of it that you might not want exposed.
"Please forward all correspondence to my associopath lawyers, who will just sue you for everything, and make us rich. And don't ask for mercy or understanding: I don't care, I'd just as soon eviscerate you as look at you. I only want your money.
"Thank you for your coöperation!!
"Sincerely,
"Teri the Teribuhl"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a trap!
IT'S A TRAP!
IT'S A TRAP!
IT'S A TRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a trap!
MILK!
MILK!
MILK!
MILK!
came from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a trap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Tweets are Public Domain
It's like talking in public and then insisting nobody repeat what you just said, or comment about it... at all. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Tweets are Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All Tweets are Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Tweets are Public Domain
Courts have, in fact, given copyright protection to short phrases. That doesn't mean Ms. Buhl's tweets necessarily will receive copyright protection, or that a quote would constitute infringement.
Here is a good article on the topic: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_09_stim.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Tweets are Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand effect ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand effect ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisand effect ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning: Nothing in this comment is publishable. Infringement is punishable by death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, snap.
O_o o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By definition...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing
Maybe if I put some threatening text at the top of my website, I'll get more traffic than just Google and Baidu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did Teri Buhl break the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publishable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know about that. With a mentality like that, if she gets her name out there she might have a very promising future with the RIAA, MPAA, US Chamber of Commerce, or any of the other "copyright" organizations that live in their own little personal universes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buhl is nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buhl is nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More fodder
http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/05/teri-buhl-responds-to-techdirts-post/
http://www.po ynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/203037/can-a-twitter-user-really-prohibit-you-from-republishing-twee ts/
(she has been positing in the in the comments section to this article)
Curiously, no public comment on her actual blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130205/11093021889/teri-buhl-responds-to-our-story -still-confused-about-internet-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More about "public" Teri...
www.linkedin.com/pub/teri-buhl/4/768/83
and a blog
http://www.teribuhl.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too bad that she can't write too well, her spelling is atrocious, and her grammar leaves something to be desired. Oh, and her tendency to throw everyone under the bus, including those that are on her side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She reminds me of Michael Crook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? she's hot.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]