TV Station Tells Blogger To Delete Twitter Message Or Face Legal Action

from the uh,-that's-not-how-it-works dept

Tragically, over the years, we've been on the receiving end of an unfair share of totally bogus legal threats from angry individuals and companies. In fact, just last week we got two such threats. We've almost never posted any details about the threats, as I prefer to give the threatener (usually someone enraged by something said in the comments, rather than by us directly) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they wrote the threat in a moment of emotional anger. I hope that when they realize that there is no legal basis for the threat, they'll back down. So far, no one has gone further than sending a threat. Some ignore our responses, some agree that they have no real intention of suing. But it still amazes me how quickly and how frequently people break out the "we'll sue you!" with no legal basis whatsoever. Luckily, in our case, we're pretty sure when we're in the clear, and (this is important) we have relationships with smart lawyers who do an excellent job representing us when we receive such threats. Not everyone is so lucky, and no matter how "safe" you are, being on the receiving end of a legal threat is never fun, especially if you are a small business or just an individual.

davebarnes alerts us to a story of just such a situation involving an anonymous blogger in Oregon, who had heard about some "embarrassing" videos involving some local TV anchors. In looking for the videos, the blogger discovered the YouTube account in question had been closed, and sent out a Twitter message asking if anyone had seen the videos before the account was closed. In response, the blogger received a legal threat from the news director of the TV station demanding the removal of the Twitter message (which simply asked if anyone had seen the video and linked to a shuttered YouTube account).

There was absolutely no legal basis for the threat, but the blogger admitted:
Her legal threat told me she was unpredictable, and she was the only one in the conversation with the resources to go to court. It didn't matter that I had done nothing wrong; I would have no way to deal with a lawsuit, frivolous or not, while still finding time to operate my website and work at my paying job.
So, even though the blogger knew the threat was frivolous, he was still in the position of worrying about whether or not it would still be brought to court. That's a huge problem. Even worse is that the news director of the TV station broke out the ridiculous threat in the first place -- especially stunning that a professional reporter would make such a threat. In followup emails, the news director tried to suggest that the lawsuit would have been against the original poster of the video, but that's not what the original letter said:
The "kointastic behind the scenes video" lifted by one of your followers from YouTube, was stolen. That is the property of KOIN Local 6. Kindly remove that posting and link so that we don't have to pursue legal action.
That certainly implies that the "legal action" would be against the blogger for posting the Twitter message. We live in a litigious age, obviously. But pulling out the big guns of threatening legal action on no legitimate basis is becoming way too common. Unfortunately, the reason why it's so common is that it's quite scary to receive a legal threat (even one with no basis), and many people quickly cave and give in. Hopefully, as more people are educated concerning their own rights, they'll push back -- but I don't see that happening any time soon.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 6:52am

    i don't use twitter, so i wouldn't know, but can you even delete a twitter message?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dirtybadger, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 7:59am

    Retweet...

    ...tis done.

    Don't even live in the US or have any particular axe to grind. It's just because I hate corporate bullies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AC, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:22am

    ah the beauty of competition

    I wonder if the blogger thought to contact a rival broadcasting station. Seems like a trivial task to report that situation in such a way as to cast their bullying tactics in a way that turns viewers off of that station.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dan Zee (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:33am

    Time honored legal ploy

    This is just one of the disadvantages of the US legal system. You can use threats of legal action to make people back down and even give up their legal rights, because who has $20,000-$60,000 just to present a defense at a legal proceeding?

    This is what the Recording Industry Association of America has been doing, sending out thousands of threat letters to either pay $1,000-$8,000 or face a legal bill of $40,000 and fines up into the millions if you lose! Most people opt for the blackmail payment.

    And Disney has done this for years. I remember they sued a restaurant in Maine because it called itself Pinocchio's! Pinocchio is a character from a book that's in the public domain, and the restaurant was not using Disney's version on anything. In that case, Disney backed down a little and agreed to pay for all new signage if the restaurant changed its name.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:34am

    There is no bullying going on here.

    The video was stolen, it shouldn't be out there, and a discussion about "who has a copy" or anything like that is perpetuating the theft of the video.

    There are times when you guys need to learn a little respect.

    As for the legal threats, I think that "so that we don't have to pursue legal action" is a pretty standard part of any "take it down" letter, as there has to be an "or else". They would probably still have at least some grounds to work from legally, certainly enough to run up some lawyer dollars on both sides.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Poster, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:37am

      Re:

      Hi there, KOIN-TV shill!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Designerfx (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:18am

        Re: Re:

        actually shouldn't the GP's post be "anonymous reporter"?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "actually shouldn't the GP's post be "anonymous reporter"?"

          Probably....

          One other thing came to mind, isn't the video a news story now? Lets find the Video, redo it as a news report, and then repost it. Fair use anyone ..... I remember the Stolen Videos of Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton Video's being used by the networks.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "actually shouldn't the GP's post be "anonymous reporter"?"

          Probably....

          One other thing came to mind, isn't the video a news story now? Lets find the Video, redo it as a news report, and then repost it. Fair use anyone ..... I remember the Stolen Videos of Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton Video's being used by the news networks in the exact same way.....

          "The video was stolen, it shouldn't be out there, and a discussion about "who has a copy" or anything like that is perpetuating the theft of the video."

          "There are times when you guys need to learn a little respect." ... Goose meet Gander ....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jon Renaut (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:38am

      Re:

      Wouldn't a friendly, 'Hey, that video was stolen, could you please delete your tweet referencing it?", be a nice first attempt? The knowingly bogus legal threat could come later, if the person refused.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:49am

      Re:

      (Hello Coward! Welcome to the Internet.)
      So...
      If I hear a rumor that somebody has made an illegal copy of a pre-release album from some rockstar and I'm all like "Wow, who did that?" or I say "I wonder who has a copy of that?" or I shorten it to "Who has a copy of that?" then I'm perpetuating the theft of the video??

      Holy crap! Please, explain logically how that works, 'cause I gotta tell ya, I just don't see it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      stander, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      Hello again AC troll, how is it under that bridge?

      "The video was stolen, it shouldn't be out there, and a discussion about "who has a copy" or anything like that is perpetuating the theft of the video."

      I disagree.
      Are making a moral judgement or stating a legal fact?
      Please explain.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      senshikaze (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:59am

      Re:

      you are ignoring the fact that the person who received the initial legal notice did not have the video right? the studio was bullying somebody who had inquired about it, but, surprisingly, that isn't illegal in the real world.


      We need an RTFM for "read the goddamned article".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DS, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:06am

      Re:

      Asking if someone saw something, and then linking to a public site where it exists is NOT PERPETRATING THE THEFT OF A VIDEO.

      What, is this now fight club, where the first rule is not to talk about it?

      There is nothing wrong or illegal with the tweet.

      There is no actual law that would force him to take down the tweet.

      Using your same logic, I expect a bogus C&D letter to be sent to techdirt, and EVERY COMMENTER on this thread.

      Using your same logic, the next time I discuss this with someone at the coffee machine, if you were standing nearby, you would threaten me with legal action.

      You need to learn respect yourself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:26am

      Re:

      Gee, like how the media routinely plays stolen videos, reports on hacked emails, and repeats leaked reports?

      Oh, yeah.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 1:47pm

      Re: Legality

      > and a discussion about "who has a copy" or anything like that
      > is perpetuating the theft of the video

      From a legal perspective your comment is absolute bullshit.

      > There are times when you guys need to learn a little respect.

      While respect may be desirable, it's not legally required and cannot be obtained through threat.

      > They would probably still have at least some grounds to work
      > from legally

      No, they wouldn't. If you think they do, feel free to explain what those grounds would be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous1, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:51am

    "There is no bullying going on here."

    What do you call threatening someone with legal action over a twitter message, a friendly hello?

    "discussion about "who has a copy" or anything like that is perpetuating the theft of the video"

    Do you even know the definition of the word "perpetuate" ?! it means,roughly to "aid in continuation of". Pardon my ignorance on the matter, or the English language, but a theft once done, is done. It can't be "perpetuated" and any discussion of anything is completely coverered by the 1st Amendment and common sense.


    "There are times when you guys need to learn a little respect."


    You need to learn the definiton of common words, and common sense.


    "They would probably still have at least some grounds to work from legally, certainly enough to run up some lawyer dollars on both sides."

    So you support frivilous legal action against non-involved parties, and wasting money for intimidation purposes?

    That kind of sounds like...what's the word? Oh yes, bullying!! LOL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Baylink, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:52am

    "Professional Journalist"

    News Directors are as much -- or these days, often more -- managers than journalists. And that may have happened at the behest of a GM or executive.

    And NDs with the political capital to tell their bosses to cool it are pretty rare these days, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous in Portland, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:58am

    Another doll-house drama at KOIN

    Sounds like KOIN's groping around for ways to damage their standing in the Portland market even further.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    spaceman spiff, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 8:58am

    Threats and the law

    Just as it is against the law in the US to make threats against another person or persons, it should also be against the law, backed up by serious penalties, for people and corporations to make baseless legal threats for no reason other than intimidation. This sort of egregious behavior should be slapped down in the most memorable manner possible with stiff fines, censure, and possible jail time. Bullies should not be tolerated, even in the slightest way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DS, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:07am

    This thread is useless without video.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:10am

    Does she...

    My first question is "Does the news director of the station have the authority to initiate legal action on behalf of the station?" My first guess is, probably not. In any case it's still not illegal to ask a question in America...even online. The woman was riding the "High Horse" in hopes to intimidate the blogger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Poster, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:13am

      Re: Does she...

      And not only did she fail - the original tweet is still up - but now she's gotten herself and the news station she works for a good amount of negative publicity for the intimidation tactics.

      I'd imagine she won't apologize for the threat, either.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:17am

    btw there's a spelling mistake.

    In second last line in article ,it should be "people" not "peole".

    ...and I love the line "we live in a litigious age."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous1, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:36am

    Gee, like how the media routinely plays stolen videos, reports on hacked emails, and repeats leaked reports?

    Oh, yeah.



    Yes, but they have the explicit permission to be shielded by their corporate-master driven Senate overlords. Apparently, you haven't seen the management chart. Sigh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:41am

    I would've left it up simply because he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to begin with. The case is simply too cut-and-dried, so much so that the defendant would have only needed to present the facts to have it dismissed. the only ones who would be inconvenienced would have been the news outfit having to foot the legal bill for a case without a single legal merit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Beefcake, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:46am

    As soon as KOIN used public radio spectrum to broadcast the content, it became public property with certain caveats of use granted to KOIN(aka copyright); but not full property rights. As such, the discussion of said broadcast falls under fair use regardless of whether or not (in this case not) the discussion medium is public or private.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 6:42pm

      Re:

      "As soon as KOIN used public radio spectrum to broadcast the content"

      I think that anything broadcasted over public airwaves should be subject to public domain. If it's not in the public domain or released under some CC license or something then it should have no place on public airwaves. It's ridiculous for the government to grant a monopoly on both the distribution channels and on the content being distributed on those channels. This has caused almost everything outside the Internet to be only available at monopoly prices and this is not acceptable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:52am

    Hmm.

    So, has anyone see the behind-the-scenes @KOIN_Local_6 videos posted by "KOINTASTIC" before the account was closed? http://3.ly/vBq

    Because suddenly, I'm a lot more curious about what's in them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 9:53am

    sorry, no...
    you broadcasted something live, someone recorded it.
    if during that broadcast something embarrassing happens, too bad... thats part of being in the public eye. dont like it? sit at home and play video games all day long...

    but dont come out threatening legal action and tossing out things like threatening emails and verbiage like "stealing our videos". it just makes you look like an idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ;), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:12am

    Anonymity.

    That is why the founding fathers of the U.S. put forth the right to be anonymous in the constitution :)

    Use Tor and I doubt you will have many troubles like that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 1:52pm

      Re: Anonymity.

      > That is why the founding fathers of the U.S. put forth the
      > right to be anonymous in the constitution :)

      They did? I've read the Constitution cover to cover more times than I can count and I've never seen a "right to be anonymous" in there.

      What's the article and section citation for that one?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 2:05pm

        Re: Re: Anonymity.

        It's covered under the 1st Amendment.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 3:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Anonymity.

          > It's covered under the 1st Amendment.

          Only by subsequent judicial interpretation. The Founders certainly didn't put it in there.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 4:04pm

        Re: Re: Anonymity.

        Held: Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. Pp.341-357.

        (a) The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes. Pp.341-343.

        http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/334/case.html

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 4:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Anonymity.

          > Held: Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution of
          > anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech
          > in violation of the First Amendment. Pp.341-357.

          > (a) The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First
          > Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary
          > realm to the advocacy of political causes. Pp.341-343.

          I seriously doubt the Founders wrote that case opinion, considering it was written in 1994. I asked what article and section of the Constitution supports the assertion that the Founders put the right to be anonymous in the Constitution.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 4:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymity.

            Sorry didn't see the answer.

            I think you are right there is no "anonymous speech" coded on the bill of rights.

            I think I thought it was there because the founding fathers were so adept of using that form of speech, anyways my mistake sorry.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:28am

    just think...

    If you could get several thousand people to tweet the exact same message! Can you imagine the jerks at the station trying to sue all of them? or even threaten all of them? And you wonder why the media is having trouble with their business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ;), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:32am

    Anonymity.

    http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion/wiki/Internet_Anonymity:_Why_It_Really_Does_Matter

    You gotta love wikileaks.

    ps: the link is a Tor Hidden service so if you want access you have to use tor to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ;), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:42am

    Anonymity.

    Sorry I forgot to put the story behind the link.

    But today brings news of a case where anonymity on the Net absolutely needs to be protected. It too involves a court subpoena ordering Google to turn over private information; in this case, the names of the owners of tcijournal@gmail.com, the e-mail address for The TCI Journal, a muckracking news site based in the Turks & Caicos Islands.

    Apparently, people in T&C don't spend all their time listening to Jimmy Buffet, eating conch, and drinking mojitos out of hollowed-out pineapples with little umbrellas stuck in them. They also spend time exposing people who allegedly bribe government officials.

    Attorneys for one of the alleged bribers, developer Dr. Cem Kinay, are now suing The TCI Journal in California in what some are calling a case of "libel tourism." (Not to be confused with a defamation vacation.) In other words, the developer in T&C chose to sue in a California court because U.S. courts make it easier to demand a company's records.



    Pretty funny story :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ;), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 10:45am

    Anonymity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 11:04am

    Curious literature on wikileaks

    Big Pharma inside the WHO: confidential analysis of unreleased WHO Expert Working Group draft reports, 8 Dec 2009

    The compilation of documents shows the influence of "Big Pharma" on the policy making decisions of the WHO, the UN body safeguarding public health. These confidential documents were obtained by the drug industry before their public release to WHO member states (scheduled to be released May 2010).

    MySpace.com Law Enforcement Investigators Guide, 23 Jun 2006

    The PDF file presents the 16-paged "Law Enforcement Investigators Guide" to MySpace. The document was produced by MySpace and is given out to law enforcement representatives on request.
    The guide details the information available to investigators on request, including IP address logs and private user communications, the conditions under which this information can be disclosed, as well as information about retention times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Dec 9th, 2009 @ 11:17am

    update

    I sent an email to the editor (from the link), and got a call back. Basically, the situation is more nuanced than the article leads on. The woman was very polite, too. However, she didn't understand copyright infringement at all. She thought it was copyright infringement - assuming the individual linking the video as the owner as well, even after I tried to explain to her twice that it wasn't the case. I'm not sure if she actually understood or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous1, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 4:45pm

    @btr1701: Were you aware that anonymous criticism of the government is one of the founding prinicples of the USA?
    Are you suggesting for even a second, that the founders did not support this right? It is inherent. If you're trying to suggest otherwise, you're simply dead wrong, in history and facts. Go read a book. Jackass...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 6:26pm

    Retweet

    This was his original tweet:

    Anyone see the behind-the-scenes @KOIN_Local_6 videos posted by "KOINTASTIC" before the account was closed? http://3.ly/vBq

    I've just tweeted it on my account. Suggest everyone does the same! ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 6:49pm

    "In fact, just last week we got two such threats."

    I hope none of it has anything to do with anything I said. I know I say some harsh things against big corporations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2009 @ 7:33pm

    People say I'll sue you like you're just suppose to shit youself and give in on whatever it is they want. I've found a stern "fuck you, sue me then." works just fine to make these dicks go away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    colin seeger, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 12:47am

    Baseless copyright threats

    Been at the receiving end of baseless copyright treats too. Fortunately, the Aust. Copyright Act (and most others do too) has a provision allowing victims of baseless copyright threats, to sue the threatening party.

    Find the clause in your own copyright statute and remind the sender that it may include them personally as defendant.

    Usually works.

    CS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous1, Dec 10th, 2009 @ 8:19am

    @btr1701: Wrong. The insult is based on a opinion.
    The opinion is based on your behavior. You're acting like a pompous-ass, thus the term "jackass". Get it?
    You simply kept asking the question, but didn't give any reason as to why it being explicitly in the Constitution mattered or not. You did IMPLY however through your questioning, that it not being in the Constitution made it invalid as a right. Either that, or you're just playing games. Get it jackass??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 11th, 2009 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      > The insult is based on a opinion.

      The fact that it's an opinion doesn't make it any less of an insipid and ad hominem attack, which is, as I said, the last refuge of a puerile mind.

      > You're acting like a pompous-ass

      What exactly about anything I've posted here qualifies as pompous assholery? Be specific so we can define terms and make sure we're all on the same page, then we can compare your own posts using that standard and see how they stack up.

      Or in the alternative, you could just be refreshingly honest and admit that-- like so many on the internet-- you define "pompous asshole" as "anyone who disagrees with me or says anything I don't like".

      > You simply kept asking the question, but didn't give any reason
      > as to why it being explicitly in the Constitution mattered or not.

      Because that was what was originally claimed.

      > You did IMPLY however through your questioning, that it not being in the Constitution made it invalid as a right.

      No, I implied no such thing. You may have mistakenly inferred it, but that error is yours and certainly not my responsibility.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This