Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law

Say That Again

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Tue, Feb 5th 2013 3:44pm — Mike Masnick

Yesterday, Tim Cushing wrote a post about Teri Buhl, a journalist who claimed via her Twitter profile that her tweets were "not publishable." When questioned on this, she threatened to sue if someone republished her tweets. Some knowledgeable lawyers gave their opinion on this (that it was all hogwash), and at least one had a short email exchange with Buhl. Hilarity ensued. You can read that whole thing for yourself.

This is the followup. A little over an hour after the post went live, we received an email from Teri Buhl demanding a "correction" (without explanation) and saying that we needed to call her about Tim's story:

I would like an editor to please call about the story Tim just wrote on me. Like now

We have no obligation to call her, and given her previous engagements with others, we felt that there was no reason to discuss this with her. She later posted a comment on the post itself, asking Tim to contact her. He did, and she sent over a statement, and a series of other emails, partly (declared by her) "on the record" and partly "off the record." To be 100% clear: we have zero obligation to not publish her "off the record" comments. We made no arrangements with her to honor her requests that certain comments be "off the record."

Buhl appears to be under the false impression that merely claiming something is "off the record" leads to an obligation that she not be quoted, and that it provides her some sort of legal status, even when others quote her. This applies both to the original story about her tweets and to her follow up emails. Separately, she asked Tim to provide my phone number, and she called our corporate line multiple times this morning, telling him that she "always" calls a subject for comment before publishing a story about them. That may be her decision as a reporter, but there is no such requirement. That's not how freedom of the press or freedom of expression works. Finally, Jim Romenesko picked up on our story in his "Morning Report" on his super popular media blog, leading Teri to send Jim the same basic statement she sent us ("on the record") along with a separate statement suggesting that we had some sort of obligation to contact her before running our story. Let's deal with that one first, and then we'll get into her other claims.

"Techdirt did not call me for comment about that story you followed this am [in the Morning Report]," writes Teri Buhl....

"I finally reached the reporter early this am who says he is working at his day job and can't update the story until he gets home. Then he won't give me the info to directly reach a techdirt editor."

Again, to be clear: we have no obligation to contact her before writing a story about information that was made public. For her to imply that we needed to do so is simply incorrect. Tim correctly noted to her that he was not at his computer, but that he had forwarded her emails to me. He did not, as she implies, promise to update the story. He also did send her to the contact page at Techdirt, which is the best way to reach those of us here.

Moving on to the statement. We will break this down, sentence by sentence, leaving typos and grammatical oddities in place.

On Record Comment:

Again, we made no agreement to keep certain comments on or off the record. Yes, it is a journalistic convention that journalists respect such requests when the people are sources, but it is standard that both sides first agree to that convention. It is not a unilateral thing that you can just declare. When talking to sources we generally offer to keep certain comments off the record. Sometimes sources approach us and ask us to keep certain comments off the record, and we then consider the situation and decide whether or not to accept. It is then that the source chooses whether or not to share.

In this case, none of that is happening. First off, Teri Buhl is not a "source." She is the subject of the story, and we wrote about her comments and discussions with others that made their way into the public record. We have no obligation to keep anything "off the record" nor did we ever agree to any such thing.

My tweets were protected for a long time because I always looked at twitter as a conversation with my readers, not quotes, I'm not reporting news there. I can say silly things some times and I'd like to apologized for my knee jerk reaction to Gideon.

Protecting your tweets is a good idea if you want to keep them mostly quiet, but that is no guarantee that others won't share them. It is quite common for people to retweet the "protected" tweets of others, often not realizing that the original person had protected their tweets. That said, Buhl here implies that her tweets have been protected "for a long time," implying that Gideon only saw her tweet as a follower of hers, and that you could make the argument that the tweets were not, in fact, "public." I would have been willing to concede that perhaps her tweets were for followers only... except that there's evidence that this is simply not true at all. If you look at Buhl's Muck Rack page it does not currently show her tweets. Muck Rack is a site for journalists that creates profiles for those journalists and often pulls together their social media presence. Yet, a simple Google cache search for the feed turns up that, as of at least January 23rd, Buhl's tweets were clearly public on MuckRack. Here's a screenshot:

Could it be that Muck Rack has a way to display protected tweets? No. The site directly states that it can only accept public Twitter feeds. And, even if Muck Rack was magically reposting her tweets from a "protected" feed, it would still be a case that her tweets were still being made public, thus depriving her of any claim that the tweets were ever private. In other words, despite her suggestion that her Twitter stream was protected for "a long time," there is substantial evidence that this is not true. If she would like to present evidence to the contrary, we are open to reviewing it. Update: Buhl told Poynter's Jeff Sonderman that she had unprotected her account "a few months ago," directly contradicting her suggestion to us that her tweets were protected during this whole thing.

Of course I can't sue him/her because I don't even know the person's real name.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you can sue someone. Has she honestly never heard of a John Doe lawsuit?

Not publishing my tweets is about a copyright issue for me.

For Teri Buhl, perhaps, but not for copyright law for the most part. We've actually covered some of the issues about the ability to copyright tweets in the past. There may be some elements that are copyrightable, and many that are not. Even so, whether or not someone then quotes you from your tweets is not likely to be "a copyright issue." If, as is the case, we were quoting statements made by her (and repeated by others), and adding plenty of additional commentary to it, there is no copyright issue at all. We are quoting her, not "publishing" her work. Furthermore, even if she went so far as to claim copyright over it, the fair use claims are obvious and quite strong.

I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on anything here.

I never print someone's tweet in a story because 1) I didn't get that comment from them directly

That is her choice, but it has no bearing on whether or not someone else can do so.

2) tweets can be changed and manipulated.

Original tweets can be deleted, but not changed. So, that's wrong. Could a third party change someone else's tweet in the process of retweeting and/or taking a screenshot? Possibly, though that would be quite a bit of effort, and no one seems to suggest that happened here. Buhl's issue here seems to be that she would not quote a tweet, and therefore, when she declares her tweets not quotable, everyone needs to respect that. That is not how things work.

I 've never had another jurno ignore that request. I think it's ironic that lawyer choose to do it.

It is surprising that she's never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it's because there's never been any reason to quote her prior to this. And, of course, it's not true. A quick search on Twitter finds people retweeting Buhl's tweets publicly prior to all of this happening. Either way, as stated above, there is no obligation not to quote her just because she says so. Also, it is not, at all, "ironic" that a lawyer chose to do so. He did so because he understands the law and knows that the original claim is bogus.

Twitter says I own my tweets and I'm giving them license to use them but I simply don't think that means I am giving others license. Of course it also depends on what the tweet is to proven I own the copyright.

This is true, but if you are quoting someone and relying on fair use, then we do not need a "license" from either Buhl or Twitter. And, yes, there is also the missing step of proving that what is in the tweets is copyrightable and owned -- but also that our use is not fair use, de minimis use, or any other of a long list of defenses.

As far as Mark Bennett - I would like to sue him and see how copyright law relating to tweets and photos in tweets wuld be tested. If can afford to do it I will. There is not a lot of case law for this in the U.S. I am not fan of aggregater sites who take journalist original work, screen grab it, and don't link or credit back to the original reporting. It think that's stealing page views and intellectual content.

As a site that reports on all sorts of nutty copyright cases, including quite a few claims from people believing, incorrectly, that aggregation is "stealing," it is possible that if she did sue Bennett, it would make for an interesting story for us to cover, though the crux of that coverage would most likely concern how ridiculous the case would be and the fact that it has about as close to zero a chance of succeeding as possible. Contrary to her claims, there is an awful lot of case law in the US concerning most of the key issues here, and all of it goes against her arguments.

Tim - please publish this in the story and write at the top there is an update.

I have taken over this story, and am publishing her statement right here in this post (along with our response, obviously). I will, however, add an update to the original post pointing people to this post.

Of course, that was not the end of the exchange. She also provided an "off the record" statement, saying that the background photo on her Twitter profile is covered by copyright, and demanded that we take down the image of her Twitter profile because "as a tech blogger I hoping you will respect copyright laws." We are leaving that image up, because even if the image is covered by copyright, we are using it under fair use rules, as part of reporting on her story. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to show her profile which includes her ludicrous comment that "tweets are not publishable" (which kicked off this whole thing). Since the bio section of your Twitter profile is able to be changed, it makes extra sense to show a screenshot to prove its accuracy.

It is unclear whether or not Ms. Buhl is familiar with fair use. I would hope that she investigates the issue carefully before further commenting about it or seeking any sort of legal action.

Buhl sent another, separate, email complaining about Tim's coverage of her arrest, much of which was based on a report from Patch. Her main concern here was that she is disputing the allegations, and she demanded that he note that the charges are "alleged" and that she "denies" them. Of course, both of those things were abundantly clear in the original post. The post does mention that her actions were alleged, and that a trial is upcoming. If she weren't fighting the charges, there wouldn't be any such trial. She further claims that "I am actually not charged with invasion or privacy or theft of anyone's personal information." Nowhere did we say that she was charged with any of those things, so there is nothing to correct on that front. Either way, in this post, we will note, again, that she is going to court over these issues, and thus, clearly, denies the "alleged" charges against her.

In the end, we're not at all clear on what she thinks she is accomplishing here, other than calling more attention to her initial claim that her tweets are "not publishable," and then calling more attention to her overall actions. We continue to stand by our reporting on this matter.

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: copyright, corrections, public statements, quotable, teri buhl, tweets

194 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 3:43pm

Error
"That's now how freedom of the press"

Should be "That's not how freedom of the press"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re: Error
  Should be "That's not how freedom of the press"
  
  You are correct. Fixed. Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Error
    You're welcome.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2013 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      WTB better way to report these things so that the feel of the story isn't ruined by someone being a grammar/spelling Nazi.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tex Arcana (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Way To Be a moron who has no clue how proper spelling and grammar affects everything you read and say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re: Error
  Actually, it is kinda true. We are living in the beginning of a permissions society in America so it is a "now" thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 3:49pm

Time for me to make an off the record comment of my own: you'd expect someone so involved in legal matters and law would have better grammar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:46pm
  
  Re:
  The only explanation I can think of is that she wrote this from her phone and didn't proofread it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:46pm
  
  Re:
  I get these kinds of replies to things on reddit all the time. The thing is when I am just firing off a response while at work or perhaps on my phone I may just glean over a few details as I do it. If I miss something my bad, but generally the overall substance of my statement remains. Given the context of her statements and the way that were made I would say she was doing something similar.
  
  Also as a friend of mine that works for the local paper said when I corrected her grammar.... That's what a copy editor is for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 3:59pm

She's basically saying I'm pissed people bother to read tweets and say something about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, I think she's saying "I'm pissed that your coverage of my stupidity is getting more attention than my coverage of my stupidity"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  I think she's saying: "I'm not the neighborhood gossip, I'm a journalist, damnit! I'm supposed to be able to make off-the-record comments to everyone on the internet!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

johnson, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:03pm

TLDR
I did not read this very long article to the end, but from the first few paragraphs I take it this Buhl character said something stupid and then you showed her she was wrong and then it went on a bit. Well done you, you must feel very smug or what ever the fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Old Man in The Sea, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re: TLDR - Good example of what to do if you get hit with the same
  The article is a good example of how one can handle such things without getting into a great deal of bother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re: TLDR
  Hey everybody, I didn't read the article but here's a stinging critique anyway!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re: TLDR
    You owe me a new keyboard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re: TLDR
    This article is Buhl-shit!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:19pm
  
  Re: TLDR
  Intense research has shown that you say an average of eleven interesting words a day.
  
  You used them up in with the "I did not read this very long article to the end" statement and therefore no one read the rest which the same research shows to be dull, unintelligent, and mostly full of shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travicane, 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:08pm
  
  Re: TLDR
  So says "Short johnson"!>b>
  I mean reading stamina, and intellect of course.
  Certainly not the other more colloquial appellation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Travicane, 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:10pm
    
    Re: Re: TLDR
    screwed up the HTML tags - oh well
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:12am
  
  Re: TLDR
  "I did not read this very long article to the end"
  
  Nor bother to read the story about which it was directly referencing, apparently, but you still felt the need to attack someone. Bravo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:32am
  
  Re: TLDR
  Must be interesting to be you. I can imagine reading part of my books, watching part of my movies and playing part of my games and then imagining the remaining part. Good exercise for the imagination!
  
  Other than that, please read it and you'll see a comprehensive explanation of why Mike took up the story, of what happened, why they are gonna keep up with their course of action and why Tim's (and this current)are ok and law abiding.
  
  It would be a shame for you to lose that level of enlightenment =)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: TLDR
  I also only read the first couple of paragraphs. I assume it goes on to talk about Ponies, the surgical tools market, before veering off into Kirk/Spock homoerotic fan fic.
  
  I shall now share my opinions on this article, considering myself to be sufficiently informed to do so.
  
  Twilight Sparkle is the best Pony, you're right Mike, so I'll give you points for that. However, your analysis of the various titanium scalpels clearly misses the advantages of emerging laser technology.
  
  Finally, I'm pretty sure Vulcans aren't that flexible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: TS;DR
  i did not read this very stupid response to a long article. but from the fact that it was already hidden, i take it you said some stupid things, and then were slammed on quite a bit while others made some comments that were either smart or funny.
  
  well done, you must feel.... well im not really sure you feel anything at all so...whatever....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph M. Durnal, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:05pm

I can't believe I read the whole thing
I don't normally read all of the long ones, but this was just one of those slow motion train wrecks that you couldn't stop reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gareth, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:06pm

So, basically, what we have here can simply be boiled down to:

Claiming title of "Journalist" doesn't magically make some random Blogger into one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:09pm

Can someone get Ms. Buhl a shovel?
Because it's just so much fun to watch her keep digging. I also coined a new(?) term for folks like this, copyclueless. Can I get a TM on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alanbleiweiss (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 11:54pm
  
  Re: Can someone get Ms. Buhl a shovel?
  I'd have assumed the term would be copywrong but copyclueless is just as efficient, I suppose...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techinabox (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:11pm

I wonder if she is related to Carreon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:07pm
  
  Re:
  "I wonder if she is related to Carreon."
  
  Even better, I hope she gets him to represent her. Oh, please God, please! I need the entertainment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    That would be insanely funny. Add me to those wishing for this epic failure. Shall we start a petition?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tex Arcana (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      YES!! ABSOLUTELY!!
      
      Start a nice White House petition!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry guys, she went with Prenda Law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  How long before she starts screaming about "rapeutation"...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:55pm
    
    Re: "Rapeutation"
    BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
    
    Awesome!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deimal (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:18pm

Keep it coming
The Prenda show notwithstanding, this has got to be the best entertainment currently available on techdirt. Keep it coming Teri, hope to you see you co-star in Dumb & Dumberer 4!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: Keep it coming
  should that be "nottweetstanding"? ... ? too soon?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re: Keep it coming
    Typo
    
    It's nottwatstanding?
    
    No offense meant =D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re: Keep it coming
  And it's "Dumberer and Dumbererest, section D"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Salsman, 5 Feb 2013 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re: Keep it coming
  Meh. This dirt has no tech. She did some good stories, but she's got issues. Who doesn't? Not really what I read Techdirt for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:48am
    
    Re: Re: Keep it coming
    It's not what I originally read TD for, but I like it. It is quasi tech related. Twitter. Copyright. Libel. Bloggers. Baseless online legal threats.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re: Keep it coming
    Also, when I read/watch/listen to the news, they keep telling me about all sorts of things that aren't news at all: sports, entertainment, etc. I just skip those bits. That should work here, too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ellie (profile), 7 Feb 2013 @ 5:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Keep it coming
    I've been aware of Teri Buhl's drama for years. I never was privy to her "elite" protected Twitter feed. Annoying that she was a journalist who reported on news that wasn't accessible to the public (me)! She's vacillated between protected-on, protected-off for her Twitter feed for awhile. Teri Buhl news stories are always high-drama!
    
    TechDirt showed remarkable restraint and courtesy. Buhl comes off as very arrogant and presumptuous. This is especially so, as she has a pending court case against her for harassment of a minor.
    
    Weird spelling, "jurno". That's not a "SoCal Trojan" nor a New Canaan expression. This made me laugh:
    
    It is surprising that she's never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it's because there's never been any reason to quote her prior to this.
    Given my low-level curiosity about her seeming (self-)importance for years, I enjoyed this post, and the one prior, immensely. Thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:19pm

Entitlement mindset yet again
What is it with all these folkee that they thinkee that they "own" what they sayee?

If you say something in public then you may well get called on it. If you get called on it and you are wrong, admit your mistake and get on with life.

If you expect someone to keep something confidential without having a close relationship with them and fully trusting them to keep your confidences then you are deluding yourself if you expect them to automatically keep your confidences just because you say so. There is no obligation to do so on the part of the hearer.

So one should be very careful what one says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt C (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 5:21am
  
  Re: Entitlement mindset yet again
  >What is it with all these folkee that they thinkee that they "own" what they sayee?
  
  Dunno.. might have something to do with 40 years of having copyright automatically attach to everything for more than a century?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusted, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:24pm

After long and careful study of the facts of this case, and the actions and apparent knowledge of the subject thereof, I can only conclude that this is one totally screwed up babe! Get a life, "lady".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChestR (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:27pm

lol
I love when Techdirt gets involved with the story. Specially when it is with people as clueless as this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:29pm

We have no obligation to keep anything "off the record" nor did we ever agree to any such thing.

Good effort, but I doubt you'll get through to her. May as well get ready to publish the next hissyfit she sends you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re:
  Looking forward to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Deimal (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:38pm
  
  Re:
  I can only hope that there's another hissyfit. This is absolutely hilarious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:31pm

Said it before and I'll say it again.

Buhlshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  That was just teribuhl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wolve98, 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:53am
    
    New Career?
    Anyone else think she may have a future as a copyright troll?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:05pm
      
      Re: New Career?
      I think she already is one...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  Next time someone does something like this, you can tell them not to be a buhl-y.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:33pm

Wow, what a Twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nimas, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:34pm

"as a tech blogger I hoping you will respect copyright laws."

...BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, did she do any research as to the nature of this site? A site which frequently and vocally opposes what it sees as the excess use of copyright in stifling expression in today's culture (both technologically and culturally). How the hell did she think this was going to go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re:
  Nope, no research. I wonder if she did the exact same thing when she studied history in school: did she study the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re:
  Precisely.
  
  She seemed to have the idea that we humor people whose Plans A-Z inclusive when challenged include these two aspects:
  
  1. Making baseless legal threats
  2. Screaming "COPYRIGHT!" until they get their way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Deimal (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:47pm
  
  Re:
  According to her personal website (teribuhl.com/about), she was an investigative financial journalist at some point. Noting her complete lack of both understanding copyright, libel/defamation law, or to be sure, journalistic integrity in general (read the story from 2010 about what she did to get charges laid against her), it seriously calls into question the vetting capabilities of the "respected" financial publications she wrote for (e.g. Forbes, NY Post, Fortune, some others on her personal site). She apparently is only truly skilled at investigating the drawers in a 17 yr old girls room and photocopying her personal journal and posting it to a fake facebook account (the girl btw was the daughter of an ex).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    One has to wonder if the "boyfriend" dumped her sneaking and conniving ass once it all blew open...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:22pm
  
  Re:
  did she do any research as to the nature of this site?
  
  Well, Mike has stated (repeatedly) that he wants copyright laws that will maximize the benefit to the public.
  
  Since that is, in fact, copyright's purpose, he obviously has more respect for copyright than Buhl does. Or his detractors (like whoever average_joe is pretending to be this week). Or, for that matter, the people who wrote the current copyright statutes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:14am
  
  Re:
  "I'm sorry, did she do any research as to the nature of this site?"
  
  About the same amount she did about Twitter, apparently...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AB, 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:52am
  
  did she do any research as to the nature of this site?
  She's supposed to be a professional reporter, why would she need to research anything?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:50pm

Should she check and see if Prenda is hiring? Maybe if she'll change her name to Alan Cooper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:54pm

Honestly if she was smart she'd just be quiet and let people forget about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:55pm

Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary
Teri Buhl is such an idiot that how does she get away with such poor grammar and an insane interpretation of the English language.

"jurno"

What the hell is that? Does she mean "journal" or "journalistic"? She needs to enroll in an English class and learn how to spell and to understand the basics of the English language.

She's the subject of a story, not the source, and I can't believe she has such a third-grade level of comprehension of the English language. And she's a journalist? Where did she learn how to spell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:13pm
  
  Re: Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary
  Maybe it's slang.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary
    I think it's her word for journalist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:16am
  
  Re: Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary
  I like the Urban Dictionary definition of a "Journo".
  
  Quote:
  2. journo
  
  Corporate journalist (political slang word). aka propagandist.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:39am
  
  Re: Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary
  It's her version of "journo", the common slang term for journalist. That's right, she can't even spell the term she uses for her own profession...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 4:55pm

Translated statement:
I've taken the liberty of translating Ms. Buhl's statement here
My tweets were protected for a long time because I always looked at twitter as a conversation with my readers, not quotes, I�m not reporting news there.
I'm a journalist who doesn't understand the basic tenets of journalism, like how interviews work.

I can say silly things some times and I�d like to apologized for my knee jerk reaction to Gideon.
Fuck. I talked to a lawyer and found out I'm full of shit.

Of course I can�t sue him/her because I don�t even know the person�s real name. This was a lesson in tweet protection for me. Asking fellow journos (or bloggers) not to publish my tweets is about a copyright issue for me.
Not only do I make baseless legal threats without understanding how lawsuits work, I don't understand copyright either.

I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist. I never print someone�s tweet in a story because 1) I didn�t get that comment from them directly 2) tweets can be changed and manipulated.
Not only do I not have the foggiest clue about the copyright, lawsuits, or journalism, I also have no idea how the internet works either.

I�ve never had another journo ignore that request.
Unfortunately I've never written anything worthy of being quoted, so I've never had to deal with this before.

I think it�s ironic that a lawyer on his blog to promote his business choose to do it.
Oh, I don't understand what the word "irony" means either. I think it has something to do with someone doing something I don't like.

Twitter says I own my tweets and I�m giving them license to use them but I simply don�t think that means I am giving others license. Of course it also depends on what the tweet is to prove I own the copyright.
Almost forgot - I don't know how ToS works either.

As far as Mark Bennett (the lawyer blogger) � I would like to sue him and see how copyright law relating to tweets and photos in tweets would be tested. If can afford to do it I will. There is not a lot of case law for this in the U.S. I am not fan of aggregater sites who take journalist original work, screen grab it, and don�t link or credit back to the original reporting. It think that�s stealing page views and intellectual content.
Even though I don't understand copyright, lawsuits, the internet, journalism or a site's ToS, I still think I know more about them than a copyright lawyer. I mean it's not like someone who went to school to explicitly study these things could know anything about them, right?

Paging Professors Dunning and Kruger. Professors Dunning and Kruger to the front desk please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re: Translated statement:
  Hi, I work in IT. Can I hire you to translate all tickets generated by end-users please?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Translated statement:
    Most end user tickets normally fall under the categories of PEBKAC, ID Ten T errors, or Layer 8 issues.
    
    The translation of these I will leave up to the reader
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
      haven't worked in IT in 20 years, but urban dictionary is quite handy :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
        haven't worked in IT in 20 years
        
        neither have I as a tech. Though you never forget your problem users. Interestingly as an ex Qantas Tech (Aircraft) when pilots or cabin crew used to have idiotic problems we would sometimes put it down to either "defective button actuator" or "seems like there could of been an intermittent short between the headphones" on the maintenance logs ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
        I fried out of tech support, and for the past 18 years have just suggested to friends and family - "have you tried rebooting your computer?" or "did you try to go to CNN.com after you couldn't get to your own web site?"
        
        Both are essentially communicating the same thing you're saying, just in a semantically unique way :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tex Arcana (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
        I tell em to buy a mac, I'm tired of being tech support
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 4:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
        We just use 'PICNIC' - Problem In Chair Not In Computer"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error
      
      This is why tech support generally asks people to insert:
      
      ID=10t
      
      on config files.
      
      LoL
      
      Although I am more of a believer in the "Alan Copper" kool-aid.
      
      Quote:
      "Don't think of the user as making errors; think of the actions as approximations of what is desired"
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Old Man in The Sea, 6 Feb 2013 @ 3:34am
      
      End User Tickets and the real errors
      After nearly 30 years dealing with computers and people, I have come to the conclusion that most problems are a result of poor interface design or poor interface implementation.
      
      There are those characters who should not be allowed anywhere near anything that resembles technology (including fire). I have found most end users do what they do because they have been shown something once only and have never been actively trained.
      
      Having written much software over the years, I try to watch what people actually do and work around any strange behaviour by making it a null action. This seems to prevent most if not all the problems that the end user will call up about (at least with my stuff). The other thing that helps is listening to the end user and understanding what they are trying to do and how they are trying to achieve it and programming accordingly.
      
      Anything not under my control usually gets helpful suggestions which mostly go ignored by the responsible developers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: End User Tickets and the real errors
        Very true - though you have to take into account the dumbest users out there and dumb-proofing your user interface takes time. ;)
        
        This comic panel springs to mind:
        317 clicks has corrected the error.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Some Other AC (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:
      As a current member of the IT/IS world, and one who did his time in a help desk role, I could not agree more.
      We typically used PICNIC when discussing user related issues.
      I will have to remember the Layer 8 reference. Have not seen that one before.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MattP, 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re: Translated statement:
    I believe you're looking for The Chronicles of George.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:05pm
  
  Re: Translated statement:
  I am not a fan of aggregater sites...
  
  Can we PLEASE spell "aggregator" correctly?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator
  
  THANK YOU
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:01pm

Is it possible...
that Teri Buhl, "Alan Cooper" (not the caretaker), and Charles Carreon are the same person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: Is it possible...
  Nah, I've seen Buhl and Carreon in the same room. Sadly, Buhl took the wrong notes away...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drewdad (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:05pm

So what's the story here?
Delusional person continues to be delusional?

You could have knocked me over with a fender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:12pm

Off the record
Off the record, I'd say she's a moron.

For the record, I'd say she's a fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:14pm

Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Also for the lulz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:17pm

Reality check! Reality check!
At this point in time, the astute reader will have come to the conclusion that Ms. Buhl's account has (ahem... Obviously?) been hijacked by 13 year-old trollette who is, at this very moment, texting all of her little friends with details of her latest escapade in grow-up baiting.

P.S. Please return control of this channel to m'lord Tim. He started it! He should have to clean up his own mess (as the armchair quarterbacks among us witness, and find great mirth and LOLs in his public attempts to outwit a freshly-minted teenager).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: Reality check! Reality check!
  Get off the computer, dad. You're drunk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:31pm

Huh?
Tim correctly noted to her that he was not at his computer...

That's oddly phrased. Is Tim often wrong about whether or not he's at his computer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: Huh?
  Depends on the quantity of acid taken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:34pm

Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
Here is a link to a 2010 article about a Teri Buhl of New Canaan, CT in trouble for posting on Facebook a 17 year old's private diary information under a false name.

http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/disturbing-story-emerges-in-new-canaan-journalist-case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- madasahatter (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
  Two more links, she is claiming bad press coverage is subverting her chance at a fair trial (second link)
  
  http://www.ncadvertiser.com/15736/buhl-waves-right-to-jury-trial-in-harassment-case/
  
  htt p://www.ncadvertiser.com/18263/buhl-harassment-trial-postponed-until-march/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:07am
    
    Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
    Maybe she can ask for a change of venue to a more neutral location where a jury of her peers won't be pre-influenced by online noise. Now, where in the world does the internet NOT exist? That's the goal!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 5:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
      I hear Franc eis good for that, this time of year.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nigel (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:07pm
  
  Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
  That is a pretty damning piece. And, while not all that surprising, it seems she had a bit of trolling assistance in the comments.
  
  Note the conflation of issues. We see that a lot around here.
  
  Nigel
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
    This one is pretty damning, too: http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/a-tale-of-two-women
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:38am
    
    Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
    I noticed that too. A lot of those comments seem strangely supportive of her and of some of the points she mmakes in her own defense in other venues (i.e. emails).
    
    Anyway, if her lawyer has a half a brain he'll tell her to stop talking about the case in public already.
    
    Whether she thinks those comments are on the record or off, they could still potentially be admissible against her.
    
    Anyway, she's clearly a nut, and in need of some judicial smackdownage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tex Arcana (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
      That's just it: his brain isn't working, because all the blood flow went south when she dropped to her knees; so he's letting her do whatever she wants.
      
      At least, it SEEMS that way. o_O O_o
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot
  Just read that article. Priceless!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
justok (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:35pm

Don't
Don't quote me on this, but I have nothing to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 5:45pm

Just quit Teri (quietly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Or more appropriate for your situation...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Carreon%20Effect

This will not go well for you if you persist. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:34am
  
  Re: Just quit Teri (quietly)
  That should be renamed to "Teribuhlis-Carreon-effect" :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:13pm

Apparently Teri Buhl can't be bothered with keeping private correspondence with her *AHEM* audience, such as via e-mail or other, rather than plastering messages for the whole world to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:32pm

Great job, Mike. You publicly shamed a woman who is not as sophisticated or as intelligent as you. You are a fucking Internet genius. Too bad you're also too chicken shit to discuss your own beliefs directly. At the end of the day, you're a bigger idiot than her. At least she's not dishonest like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re:
  You are remarkably articulate for a child.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nigel (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re:
  "At least she's not dishonest like you." So sayeth dude who cant read the article.
  
  Not withstanding the fact she shamed herself(repeatedly from what I can tell).
  
  Mike's beliefs are firmly rooted in this site. That his position escapes you is not at all surprising. Keep your pecker up though, you will figure it out sooner or later.
  
  Nigel
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike's extremely vocal and opinionated, yet when it comes to certain specific issues, he pretends like he's completely unable to form any opinion whatsoever. There's dozens of things that he refuses to talk about or acknowledge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 11:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bullshit as usual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AJ as usual. He spent all night thinking of how to use this post to ask the same questions yet again. Do you have that link where Mike answers him in a very comprehensible manner?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Can you please provide a list of at least 24 things (i.e. "dozens") that he refuses to talk about or acknowledge. Or just admit you made that claim up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:57pm
  
  Re:
  So glad to see you're still with us and still haven't learned anything.
  
  Arrogant, belligerent troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, pointing out how he refuses to discuss certain things about what he believes personally is so arrogant and angry. Not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, vehemently lying about how he refuses to discuss certain things about what he believes personally on multiple unrelated stories is so arrogant and angry.
      
      FTFY.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Yeah, pointing out how he refuses to discuss certain things about what he believes personally is so arrogant and angry. Not."
      
      It is when you do it like a 10 year old.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This, combined with Karl's comment above - he's not only acting like a petulant toddler (most 10 year olds are more mature), he's spamming every thread with idiotic lies. That's what makes him arrogant and angry, not to mention obnoxious and obsessive...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is when you do it like a 10 year old.
        
        The child is the one who runs from every debate, making excuse after excuse for why he shouldn't answer basic and fundamental questions about his beliefs about copyright. I'm going to keep bringing it up over and over and over again until he actually goes on the record as to his position. He's clearly lying and being dishonest when he claims to be unable to address even the most basic point.
        
        Want to get rid of me, Mike? Actually discuss the issues directly for the first time in your life. No excuses. No running away. Man up and state your beliefs. Take a position. Get off the fence. WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE NOT REALLY ON THE FENCE!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It really doesn't matter anymore AJ. You've gotten to the point where you've made this "debacle" about yourself and not about the answer to a question, which for some reason haunts you in an almost obsessive way.
        
        The fact that you continue to chide Mike about something so unimportant just proves how childish you are, especially since you do it here instead of possibly emailing him about it or asking through the Google hangout.
        
        So basically you're not only being a child about it and stamping your feet for an answer you want, you're also half-assing the attempts to get an answer out of Mike.
        
        Good luck because I'm sure he'll just continue to ignore you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "almost obsessive way."
        
        Erm, way beyond obsessive IMHO.
        
        "something so unimportant"
        
        It's not even unimportant as it is already answered. There's many articles where Mike has stated his opinion. Not to the point where he's written a detailed outline (which is presumably nuanced enough to depend on a scenario rather than a blanket opinion) but a regular reader can easily determine his overall stance. Just as any regular here probably understand my stance and those of other regular commenters - although certain tossers tend to deliberately misunderstand that as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You're not really on the fence"? Really, why bother asking him if you've already decided on the answer you want to hear?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, wait, let me guess.
  
  Teri Buhl's your wife, isn't she? So that's where she gets all that copyright misinformation from, and why you keep insisting on using her laptop to post here! The BOTH of you enjoy posting naughty things on Techdirt; now it all makes sense!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I figured that Teribuhl is OOTB; but, single laptop/multiple trolls makes good sense too.
    
    Slimy troll is slimy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, AJ doesn't do personal relationships. They are above his social skilll level.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe AJ to his "wife" is as Sheldon J. Plankton to Karen?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:22pm
  
  Re:
  Great job, Mike. You publicly shamed a woman who is not as sophisticated or as intelligent as you. You are a fucking Internet genius. Too bad you're also too chicken shit to discuss your own beliefs directly. At the end of the day, you're a bigger idiot than her. At least she's not dishonest like you.
  
  Are you aware the internet does not revolve around you, much less this small corner of it?
  
  Every comment. ME. ADDRESS ME. ME. ME.
  
  TYPICAL COMMENT: "This post is claims to be about EU concerns with copying levies, but IT'S REALLY ABOUT ME AND MY PERSONAL HANGUP."
  
  You make the average teenager look worldly, well-rounded and acutely aware of their overall position in the great scheme of things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Meh. The fact remains that Mike refuses to discuss his personal beliefs about copyright directly. He claims to be unable to form an opinion, if you can believe that. I don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nigel (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "He claims to be unable to form an opinion"
      
      Yeah, where does he claim is exactly? You are full of shit.
      
      Nigel
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What the hell does it matter?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't you think Mike's personal beliefs matter? I do. And the fact that he refuses to discuss his own beliefs, while he's so critical of everyone else's, speaks volumes about his character. All he wants to do is criticize and tear down. He has no interest whatsoever in having a reasonable discussion about the issues that are fundamental to copyright. All he has are excuses for why he shouldn't answer simple and direct questions. Either he's too dishonest or too ashamed of his own beliefs to discuss them. That sucks. It's not a big surprise though that someone so extremist and so opinionated can't even begin to discuss his own beliefs. That fits in perfectly with the type of person he is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        iCleverUserName (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Don't you think Mike's personal beliefs matter?"
        
        On what? Tech news?
        
        Have you actually read his articles? I think virtually every writer here is pretty clear in their opinions in almost all articles.
        
        What specifically is lacking? Do you have any specific topics or posts that show this huge lack of personal belief?
        
        Also, do you understand how absolutely laughable it is that we are talking about this in relation to the story? It would be comical if not so pathetic
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As far as Mike's belief's go, every single post he makes here is filled with his personal opinion - which is another word for beliefs. So what the hell are you asking for? It's obvious you won't be happy until Mike is screaming "I'm a filthy pirate and Google pays me to kill puppies." Nothing else will ever satisfy you.
        
        Please go away and find something positive to do with your sad life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah I think that's pretty much what he's after. He's fixated on an image of Mike that doesn't fit what anyone else is seeing. He wants Mike to specify exactly what AJ thinks he believes so he can go "ha! caught you!" and do... well I'm not sure actually. If Mike ever decided to actually meet his idiotic demand, the conversation would probably turn to "you're lying that's not what you really think!" because it doesn't meet AJ's distorted reality version, yet AJ would not be able to provide any proof that it's wrong. Rinse, repeat, until everyone tires and the idiot is finally blocked, at which point he'll whine on other sites about censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        thejynxed (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To sum your response, and this entire thread, we shall use the following declaration:
        
        "AJ has Cognitive Dissonance with two delicious sides of Ad Hominem smothered with Appeal to Authority."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words, he could give lessons to Creationists? :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tex Arcana (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think I said this already, but I'm thinking more and more that AJ is Teribuhl...
        
        We'll know for sure when she goes to prison, and AJs posts drop off suddenly...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We should call this the "AJ Effect."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tex Arcana (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn, boy: you sound like a hyperconservative bible-thumping closeted-gay freedom-hating constitution-shitting money-grubbing pageboy-molesting altar-boy-diddling patriarchal nazi zealot.
        
        If I didn't know better, I'd think we were dealing with a republican...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:53pm
  
  Re:
  Is your plan to make Teri Buhl look like the sane one here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re:
  Clearly you're projecting your own rotten behavior ontu Mike because you never back the dishonesty claim up with anything other than your own dishonesty
  
  By all means tell us more about how Mike was somehow hiding who paid for the sky is rising report dispite having already disclosed who paid for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gnudist, 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Eye speeled "onto/despite" rong
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 11:18pm
  
  Re:
  At least shes not dishonest like you
  
  Really crazy universe you're living in where "lying one's ass off" is not considered being dishonest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:12am
  
  Re:
  holy crap can't you even change your own rant from time to time? Apparently you keep the core concept stored in your clipboard so you can rapidly paste it in, make a couple minor changes and submit.
  
  You're such a douche you're an asshat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    At least I don't run a blog where I shit on everyone else's beliefs about copyright while making excuses for why I can't discuss my own beliefs directly. Talk about douchebaggery.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - iCleverUserName (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "shit on everyone else's beliefs about copyright"
      
      Everyone else's beliefs.....who are these "Everyone else" people?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently AJ doesn't like the whole aspect of free speech here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 2:44am
  
  Re:
  "You publicly shamed a woman who is not as sophisticated or as intelligent as you."
  
  Well I guess that's something you can directly relate to. You two could start a support group...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:54pm

Now all we need is for Teri Buhl's lawyer in this case to be John Steele to Carreon the tradition of digging into bad positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 6:56pm

Anyone paying her for her ability to do research needs to demand a refund.
If I see any outlet carry anything written by her I will have to consider if they actually are worth the time and effort, as they have hired someone without a brain.

Ms. Buhl, welcome to the internet. We don't forgive stupidity, we don't forget it. Your actions have made it clear you have a flawed understanding of the law and your own abilities. It would be best for you to issue apologies, shut up and GTFO the internet until such time as you can grasp basic ideas. Every single extra word you have said, and misspelled, is costing you any hope of getting future work. There might have an opening at TMZ where they enjoy fanciful stories without basis in reality.

In closing go out with a bang, announce to the world how your going to take me down for disparaging you. Not only will you never get as far as my real name, I will take great joy in showing the world how dumb you actually are on an epic scale.

Oh and this is all off the record... so by your rules you can't use it. HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Guy, 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:56pm

Awesome post. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:32pm

Mike--It's cute to see you so excited as you show how wrong she is and how right you are because the law is on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:11pm
  
  Re:
  It's cute to see you missing the point entirely
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:40pm
  
  Re:
  It would be cute to see a piano dropped upon your head
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 10:00pm
  
  Re:
  Hell, if you could call Masnick worse than Hitler because you claim Hitler demonstrated his beliefs, you'd do it too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure Hitler was dishonest too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So was someone who claimed to agree to leave the site after Masnick apologised to him, then reappeared unsigned in to insult everyone again. Hey look, you've just equated yourself to Hitler!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 5 Feb 2013 @ 8:42pm

Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press means freedom of the (printing) press, not some group that calls themselves the press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tex Arcana (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:47pm
  
  Re: Freedom of the press
  "Freedom of the press" also means the freedom to write what you want, how you want, when you want. It also means the freedom to read what you want, when you want, how you want.
  
  Since freedom isn't "free", it comes with it responsibility: in this case, the responsibility of the author to make damned sure the facts are facts, the law is the law, and that the truth is being published, even if the author doesn't like it. As for the reader, her responsibility is to use sense in interpreting what is read, to question what she read, and to do so always, in order to help keep the journalists honest. So, just as journalists keep readers honest (it could be YOU on those pages), readers keep journalists honest as well, by questioning them and making them defend/justify/prove their assertions.
  
  Teribuhl failed her profession and her readers, on all counts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 6 Feb 2013 @ 5:10am
  
  Re: Freedom of the press
  "Freedom of the press means freedom of the (printing) press, not some group that calls themselves the press"
  
  Who gets to arbitrarily decide who's the press and who isn't? Anyone can be press, just as anyone can be a musician, filmmaker, video game developer, et al. without seeking someone else's permission. Technology has moved well beyond the limitations of the printing press, in case you haven't noticed. Tell me, does the First Amendment not apply to phones and computers simply because they didn't exist back when the Constitution was written?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 7:25am
    
    Re: Re: Freedom of the press
    Even when it was, someone could still hand-copy stuff if they wanted - taking 'press' to literally mean a printing press would be dumb.
    
    Might as well suggest that the 2nd Amendment only applies to late-18th Century muskets - not that it wouldn't be a fun idea! ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: Freedom of the press
  Um...says who?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 7 Feb 2013 @ 8:31am
  
  Re: Freedom of the press
  Freedom of the press means freedom of the (printing) press, not some group that calls themselves the press
  
  Sorry Tom, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on that.
  
  The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. [emphasis mine] Lovell v. City of Griffin - 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 7 Feb 2013 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: Freedom of the press
    Yanno, this right here makes the case for keeping the Internet neutral and out of the hands of governments and corporations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 9:21pm

Prod Trolls with Stick but Do NOT ENGAGE
One curious notion that the AC's around here fail to realize is that its sites like Techdirt that fight for their right to be complete pussies, anonymously.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 10:49pm

Her being journalist just makes this so perfect rofl! Learn from her example or you risk Teri Buhling yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2013 @ 10:58pm

This level of ignorance is very surprising and concerning for a so-called journalist.

Not only is she ignorant of the law regarding reporting of information that is publicly available, but she's also ignorant of journalistic practices (e.g. when she thinks Techdirt owes her to contact her before publishing their article).

And not only that, but by her actions she is attacking freedom of the press.

"I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist."

I don't know what new source would, in their right mind, pay her for this, but whoever they are I would not read their newspaper or website. I'd have to strongly question the credibility of a news source that would hire someone like this for any journalistic work. And if I ever find as much as an opinion column from this lady in a newspaper I read, I'll cancel my subscription immediately.

It seems anybody with an opinion can be a journalist these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:20am
  
  Re: Good Advice for Teri
  The comments are especially hilarious on this one. At first I thought it was just me, but there are a few other comments here that picked up on the irony. She is allegedly an investigative journalist. Really?
  
  If she took more than a cursory glance at this site she would have quickly seen that there are loads of articles about copyright, IP law, and 1st Amendment issues and how abuses are occurring in the digital age.
  
  Rather than comment about her behavior, I think its better to advise her to search through the techdirt archives for stories related to journalism in the digital age. If she did that, she might learn that newspapers are becoming irrelevant because they don't understand how to service a community. Perhaps she will even take note of how the techdirt community reacted to her "elite journalist" posture.
  
  Legacy Journalists - 0
  Intewebs - 1
  
  Surprise alternate ending:
  Just maybe Teri Buhl is not as idiotic as we are assuming. She may just be trying to draw as much attention to herself as she possibly can. She is going to trial over her dicey internet behavior and may be trying to get as much strength as possible behind her claim that she cannot get a fair trial because of the publicity on the net about her alleged misconduct.
  
  Basically she may be trying to leverage the Streisand Effect for use as a defense in court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 5 Feb 2013 @ 11:20pm

Dumb, ugly and lying. A potent combination...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 5:24am
  
  Re:
  Which means that she'd be a shoe-in for Senator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
feda (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 12:19am

Dear Teri. Get bent. Like now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Garner (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 4:59am

Less Teri Buhl; more Dan Bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  Can't wait to hear Dan Bull's take on Teri Buhl!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 5:38am

why not just let her take whoever to court, make a complete twat of herself and end up having to pay out a lot of money whilst screwing up even further what little reputation she may have? perhaps then she would learn to keep her fucking mouth closed until her brain was in gear!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some Other AC (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  You are assuming that it is within the realm of possibility for her "brain" to get in gear. Based on the linked articles, her own inane statements, and her general lack of anything resembling intelligence, I am pretty certain the gears are fully stripped and may not exist in any usable form.
  That being said, Teri Buhl, please keep digging. You have been added to the likes of Charles Carreon, John Steele and Brett Gibbs. Congratulations on your demotion to the rank of internet parasite.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:11am

Sympathy
Actually, I found her "clarification" to depict a different side of her. It seems rather obvious she was, at first, frustrated by the interaction and threatened to sue. It's easy to see twitter as a one on one conversation and sometimes, emotions turns into words too fast. One day later, her head has already started to cool down, but she's quite fearful. It shows in the way she interacted, considering she's also involved in some lawsuit, it's easy to understand how overwhelming this whole situation can be, on an emotional basis. Let's hope the best issue for everyone, on this one. After all, we're all humans and we make mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Sympathy
  Except the Internet doesn't exactly work that way either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thejynxed, 6 Feb 2013 @ 6:34am

tl;dr
tl;dr

Posting your stupidity to a public forum like Twitter will get your stupidity commented upon publicly.

Also, 42, because she obviously needs to learn the meaning of the life, the universe, and everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:20am

As a graduate of the Cooks Source School of New Journalism I find many of the principles of journalism and copyright expressed here (and by the jurno this article is about) to be just wrong!

BTW, your comment form seems to be broken. I cannot find the Off Record button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 8:36am

*Where does he claim this rather

N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iCleverUserName (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:33am

BTW, why is Teri hiding behind these fake accounts with absurd "You don't give your opinion!" posts as if anyone here gives a hoot?

We see this sites opinion virtually every day if not most articles....so I am not sure what in the hell that even means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iCleverUserName (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 9:48am

You don't know his position on Copyright issues?

Have you even read this blog before this idiot lady made a laughable claim?

Trying to act big with the "You won't get rid of me!" type posts really doesn't make you anything other than someone so darn desperate to change the story from the stupidity of this woman to.....Mike's opinion on copyright which is very apparent from a reading of his stories here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:11pm

litt english lesson
you know what off the record means?
It means not recorded.
You are srsly retarded if you think 'declaring' it as off the record means that recorded information is locked down. brainwashed into thinking like the ownership culture that one eh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2013 @ 7:34pm

What's the point?
This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl's stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. Congratulations. You just totally burned an unemployed journalist, bro.

You're right, you're under no obligation to call her for comment, and you're under no obligation to honor her requests to speak off the record. But we work on an honor system in this business. It's common courtesy to allow a source to at least give you an aside on background if they really feel it's necessary, and it's just good practice to actually pick up the phone and call someone for comment, especially when you're slamming them in your publication.

The issue isn't so much Buhl, because you're just beating a dead horse by now, but the other sources who won't trust you in the future now that they know how you operate.

You can establish a bit of trust and extend common courtesies in journalism without being a doormat. It's to your benefit in the long run, as is learning to use the phone.

In the meantime, totally awesome scoop bro, you spoke truth to power and really stuck it to that unemployed former reporter from a mid-tier local newspaper. SCOOP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- apauld, 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re: What's the point?
  Good Christ you are a vapid and completely worthless POS. You apparently are to stupid to understand html and hyperlinks. Here is a clue moron... Mike usually only aggregates from other stories (hence the html and the hyperlinks); if you are so incredibly stupid that you can not understand what that means, then it says more about you than it does about him. You are such a pathetic waste of humanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re: What's the point?
  This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl's stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. Congratulations. You just totally burned an unemployed journalist, bro.
  
  Congratulations, you can't read. (1) Wasn't me who wrote the original story. (2) She THREATENED TO SUE a couple of lawyers for daring to quote her public comments.
  
  You're right, you're under no obligation to call her for comment, and you're under no obligation to honor her requests to speak off the record.
  
  There were no requests. She just made a statement and assumed that there was some legal basis for making her PUBLIC statements off the record.
  
  But we work on an honor system in this business. It's common courtesy to allow a source to at least give you an aside on background if they really feel it's necessary, and it's just good practice to actually pick up the phone and call someone for comment, especially when you're slamming them in your publication.
  
  She wasn't a source. And, what you consider "good practice" and what actually is a good practice need not be the same thing.
  
  The issue isn't so much Buhl, because you're just beating a dead horse by now, but the other sources who won't trust you in the future now that they know how you operate.
  
  I'm not afraid of that, because we've never burned a source. Again, she was never a source. And we've always honored reasonable requests for off the record comments. If anyone reads this and thinks they won't be a source for us in the future... frankly, they're not nearly smart enough to be a good source.
  
  You can establish a bit of trust and extend common courtesies in journalism without being a doormat. It's to your benefit in the long run, as is learning to use the phone.
  
  Oooh, real dig there. I use the phone all the time. I call sources and contacts all the time. You seem to think this story was something it was not.
  
  In the meantime, totally awesome scoop bro, you spoke truth to power and really stuck it to that unemployed former reporter from a mid-tier local newspaper.
  
  I'm glad in the scoreboard in your head, this story doesn't count.
  
  If you actually knew what we wrote about, it fits perfectly with our standard fare, and was our most popular story yesterday. Apparently, people found it interesting. You misunderstood it and you didn't like it.
  
  Too bad for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Feb 2013 @ 11:31pm
    
    Ohnoez!
    Mike,
    
    You've got to stop providing your input in these threads. It shatters the troll who consistently claims you're unwilling to express your views here. :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2013 @ 12:54am
  
  Re: What's the point?
  "This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl's stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. "
  
  Translation: I didn't bother to read the article. Certainly not far enough to understand who wrote the original article it's commenting on (not Mike), the fact that the original story was reporting on Buhl's own actions (attempting to sue other journalists and lawyers for quoting statements she'd already made public), and nothing here was initiated by Techdirt at all.
  
  It really is nice when a person announces themselves as ignorant and uninterested in the truth upfront. It saves a lot of hassle.
  
  "unemployed journalist"
  
  If that's true, maybe there's a reason she's unemployed? Perhaps something related to her actions displayed in these stories and the upcoming court case she has on another issue already mentioned?
  
  "The issue isn't so much Buhl, because you're just beating a dead horse by now"
  
  Beating a dead horse? There's been exactly two stories - one on the original story and this one on her reaction to said story. Why is that overdoing things?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2013 @ 9:26am

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=VqP9OCWO37gNNbx6EVsdUA==& ;system=prod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stevethepirate, 7 Feb 2013 @ 12:26pm

Buhl shhh
She was arrested for posting a private journal of a teenager on facebook. To heck with her and her smug arrogance.

http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/disturbing-story-emerges-in-new-canaan-journalist- case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chip, 7 Feb 2013 @ 12:37pm

How are the charges "alleged"? The charges are the charges, they are a fact. Their crimes are "alleged".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Babatoothpaste, 7 Feb 2013 @ 1:31pm

???
What to people with no talent become? Journalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2013 @ 5:18am

One word for miss Buhl. Twittiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]