Investigative Journalist Claims Her Public Tweets Aren't 'Publishable;' Threatens To Sue Blogger Who Does Exactly That

from the hubristupidity! dept

Update: In case this isn't enough, there's a follow up to this story, as Teri Buhl is apparently not a fan of our writeup.

Choose your battles carefully. This warning/advice is more relevant than ever in an era of instant feedback, social media and thousands of pages of "relevant results" microseconds away. Here's a small story of how not to deal with a problem caused by your own actions.

Mark Bennett, a Houston criminal defense lawyer, was recently pointed in the direction of a rather inexplicable statement attached to a Twitter profile. Teri Buhl, an investigative journalist specializing in Wall Street, has this wording on her profile page:

A friend of Bennett's (@gideonstrumpet) asked, "What does that mean?" Buhl replied:


Gideon sensibly replied "ok thanks. I don't know how you prevent that, though. I could write a post quoting you."

At this point, Buhl went "legal," responding that she would sue him because she "stated" her tweets are not "on record comments." And she certainly could, although one wonders who would take her case. Gideon asked for a few second opinions on the legality of Buhl's claim, and got answers from these two gentlemen whose names are likely familiar to Techdirt regulars, Marc Randazza and Popehat.


So, we have someone thinking their public tweets are private property, and therefore lawsuit-bait if anyone attempts to "quote" them. While Twitter's TOS assures users that their Tweets are their property, it's quite another thing to state something publicly and then claim you don't want it quoted. Would a retweet be a violation of Buhl's statement? After all, it's a "direct quote" originating from another account. What about embedding the tweet? Still a problem? Even if Buhl's claim wasn't baseless, she'd still have a hell of a time enforcing it. If you don't want something you said going public, why on earth would you use a very public platform like Twitter to say it?

It gets uglier from there, though. Buhl decided to continue her legal threats via email shortly after Mark Bennett posted screencaps of her tweets.


This prompted Bennett to do a little digging. For someone who's so concerned with retaining strict control of her information, Buhl certainly doesn't seem to mind throwing around other people's information -- even the contents of a teenage girl's personal journal.
A New Canaan woman police say posted personal and sexually explicit information on Facebook about her boyfriend's 17-year-old daughter was arraigned Tuesday in state Superior Court on charges of second-degree harassment, second-degree breach of peace and interfering with an officer.

Teri Buhl, 38, of 81 Locust Ave., appeared briefly before Judge Maureen D. Dennis with her lawyer, Christopher W. Caldwell of Norwalk...

Buhl surrendered on Oct. 27 at New Canaan police headquarters after learning that a warrant had been obtained for her arrest. She was released after posting a $5,000 bond.
Here's how Buhl allegedly set about "publishing" someone else's much more private "statements:"
A look at the documents that led to the warrant and arrest tells a disturbing story of Web-based strong-arming and privacy invasion from a woman who knew her victim and attempted to disguise her own identity.

New Canaan police Youth Bureau Commander Sgt. Carol Ogrinc said in an affidavit that the girl and her father, Paul Brody, came to police June 24 to report that someone using the name 'Tasha Moore' had posted personal notes from the girl's journal on Facebook.

The girl said she kept the journal in her dresser drawer in her bedroom, and that she wrote the notes shown on Facebook last April. The girl said she had replied to the e-mail address provided by Moore on her Facebook page, and had told Moore to stop posting personal information about her or she would contact police.

Moore reportedly answered that she welcomed the legal action and knew the girl's father was a corporate lawyer. Moore said she didn't think the girl would contact police because then her father would find out about the embarrassing information from the journal, according to Ogrinc's statement.
As Bennett points out, it's apparently OK to publicly post information from a minor's personal journal, but not OK to post a public Teri Buhl tweet anywhere else on the internet.

Buhl has finally done what she should have done a long time ago and taken her account private. This will likely be the end of this story as Buhl has probably realized she's on very shaky ground. (This belated tweet captured via her page at Muck Rack seems to confirm this.)


With a trial date set for March 22nd, she may not have time to fight another legal battle. Not only that, but if she's going to go after "republishers" like Bennett and Gideon, she's also going to need to free up time to go after less human foes like favstar, Topsy and yfrog.

Here's a suggestion: don't antagonize people by attaching implicit legal threats to your public profile. All it does is attract the kind of attention you don't want -- for instance, another public airing of your alleged illegal actions. It doesn't win you any new friends or followers and it certainly does very little to raise anyone's estimation of you. Instead, it makes you look like exactly what you are -- someone who's going to slip into "sue" mode at the drop of a tweet.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:15pm

    So does she negotiate with everyone before she quotes them?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:21pm

      Re:

      Apparently not... as I read the article to say that she's going to court over violating the privacy of a minor by posting private information from a journal online.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Prattle On, Boyo, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:23pm

    Buhl is just another attention whore looking for her 5 minuts of internet fame.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:29pm

    This reminds me

    This reminds me of those nonsense disclaimer blurbs some business put at the end of business emails, to the effect of "contains confidential information, if you aren't the intended recipient, you must destroy this email, blah blah blah"

    Complete baloney, but they put it in anyway. And probably think it has some kind of legal weight.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      otb (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 4:22pm

      Re: This reminds me

      Ruses work often.

      Is there really any reason to NOT include that blurb?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 7:13pm

      Re: This reminds me

      Probably more to protect themselves from the liability for "gross negligence" for breach of confidential/private information, et al.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:36pm

      Re: This reminds me

      Except that email is an ostensibly private communication between the sending and receiving parties.

      Sure, you might not be able to force the issue, but if you were to publish the information you gained fraudulently from such an email, I wouldn't be surprised if the company could take some form of legal action against you.

      Remember, the Feds sent proof to al-Haramain's lawyers that they were being warrantlessly wiretrapped, and the Court did not allow them to use that proof in making their case.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:51am

        Re: Re: This reminds me

        Yes, but if some nimrod sent the email to you, unsolicited, then I think what's going on there is fair game. I.e., if you send me an unsolicited email, accidentally or otherwise, and I act upon it in some way, it's on you, not me.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:26am

        Re: Re: This reminds me

        if you were to publish the information you gained fraudulently from such an email, I wouldn't be surprised if the company could take some form of legal action against you.


        They'd have no legal basis to do so whatsoever unless you received the email due to wrongdoing on your part. If they just accidentally sent it to you, you can legally publish it as far and wide as you wish, regardless of the blurb.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:53pm

        Re: Re: This reminds me

        > but if you were to publish the information you gained
        > fraudulently from such an email

        If someone sends me an email by mistake, I haven't fraudulently done anything. Fraud requires illicit action on my part. A merely receiving an email by mistake from someone else isn't fraud.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      alanbleiweiss (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:42am

      Re: This reminds me

      oh that email disclaimer works really well. I routinely unintentionally receive confidential emails, and after reading them (not knowing in advance they weren't for me,) as soon as I see the disclaimer, I delete the email, and run a special scrubbing program to overwrite the 1s and 0s where the email was on my hard drive.

      Then, I run a special electode-connected module program that's wired to my head, so I can erase the memory of what I read.

      It's really standard procedure.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 5:28am

      Re: This reminds me

      I had a part-time lawyer send me an email with that disclaimer on accident when he sent out a personal email. Although he did claim he would not sue me, I still could not get an answer how you can type someone's email into the "To:" line, and somehow not intend to send the email to that person.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:32am

      Re: This reminds me

      It is not necessarily complete baloney. I'm curious why you think it is.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re: This reminds me

        Yes it is complete baloney. I'm curious why you think it is not.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: This reminds me

        Because a third party cannot unilaterally decide that you are held to such an obligation. You have to proactively agree to it. The blurb has no legal weight whatsoever.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

          It may not create a binding agreement, but it does (or likely does) put the recipient on notice of the sender's expectations and desire for confidentiality, which can be relevant to various potential causes of action.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 2:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

            Such as? Just because the recipient is aware of the sender's wishes does not mean that the recipient has a legal obligation to honor them.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 2:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

              Just as a hypothetical, let's say the email contains a trade secret.

              protection of a trade secret depends on taking reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy. What is "reasonable" is going to depend on lots of different things, but a confidentiality disclaimer and request to destroy the info adds a little bit of weight to the side of the scale showing "reasonableness."

              Also, if the recipient is put on notice that the information was inadvertently provided and confidential, their action in distributing or capitalizing on the information is more likely to be considered "misappropriation."

              That's one scenario. It's not too hard to think of others, but making blanket assertions that "you can legally publish it as far and wide as you wish, regardless of the blurb" is not quite right.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 3:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

                What you say PUBLICALLY has no protection whatsoever. You don't want it out there, being repeated/used/seen/etc, then DON'T. FUCKING. SAY. IT.

                If you send me an email with a trade secret accidentally, then the onus is on YOU to contact me to prevent said secret from getting out. I have no obligation to keep my trap shut, for any reason. YOU SENT IT TO ME. It was UNSOLICITED; and like getting an unsolicited package in the mail containing (say) a widget that's a trade secret (or even unpaid for), it does NOT mean I HAVE to do jack shit about it, including not reading/deleting/disseminating/paying for it. The law on unsolicited mail is VERY clear: you send it to me without me asking for it, and what happens after I get it is up to ME, and if you don't like it, tough.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 3:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

                  I agree that keeping things confidential is the best policy. But mistakes happen, and the effect of such mistakes might differ depending on various circumstances, including, potentially, email disclaimer language.

                  Here's an article on the topic. http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/

                  I'm curious what law you are referring to that is "VERY clear" and says what you say it says.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:44pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

                    Funny, that article appears to back up my claim. At least, it doesn't mention the possibility that an email disclaimer can bind the actions of an unintended recipient, despite exhaustively listing other situations where it can be useful (in binding intended recipients).

                     

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

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This reminds me

                Also, if the recipient is put on notice that the information was inadvertently provided and confidential, their action in distributing or capitalizing on the information is more likely to be considered "misappropriation."


                Actually, no, it wouldn't be. If a trade secret is accidentally sent to the wrong person, that wrong person is in no way, shape or form required to keep the secret. Using it wouldn't be misappropriation.

                The only way such an onus would fall on a person is if the obtain access to the trade secret through fraudulent or illegal means (or by agreeing to keep the secret). Receiving a misdirected email is none of those.

                It's not too hard to think of others


                Then please do.

                making blanket assertions that "you can legally publish it as far and wide as you wish, regardless of the blurb" is not quite right.


                I believe it is. I don't mind if I'm wrong. I often am. I'd love to hear an example of how this is an instance of that.

                 

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

  •  
    identicon
    ShellMG, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    Biblical proportions

    Sounds like Ms. Buhl didn't want what she'd done to others to be done unto her.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Some Guy, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:33pm

    What a total bitch.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:40pm

    Permission Culture

    This is more of a symptom of the Permission Culture that's been going on for the past 4 generations. *Sigh*

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jason Bentley (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 3:55pm

    Not unusual

    I work in the legal department for a self-publishing website, and this shit is more common than you would think. There's a subset of people out there that aren't stupid, but completely deluded by legal pop culture. They are usually "self-educated". They LOVE dares disguised as disclaimers and proclamations larded with "constitution-y" words like "forthwith" and "hereby." They constantly threaten legal action, for reasons that morph with every keystroke. Many are revealed to be a defendant other matters, often involving harassment. They will often try to act like their version of a prosecutor on "Law & Order," and make demands that are actually thinly veiled threats.

    It's a really weird symptom of our time. It's unquestionably predatory. Thankfully they're getting easier to spot.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 4:24pm

    This comment is copyrighted, trademarked, patented and DRMed for your viewing pleasure. By reading this, you have also violated one or more of the above measures.

    Please remit your payment of $10,000 to the following address...

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Tom NJ, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 4:38pm

      Re:

      I have a check written but your address was cut off. Please repost. Oh darn. I just re-read your post. I'll cut another check.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 5:13pm

    Sociopathic Behavior

    •Grandiose Sense of Self
    Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    •Manipulative and Conning
    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    •Pathological Lying
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    •Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    •Irresponsibility/Unreliability
    Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

    •Glibness and Superficial Charm

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    I'm a stupid cunt, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 5:39pm

    I am dumb

    Hi,
    And my vagina smells funny.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    yclipse (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 5:48pm

    What makes her an investigative journalist?

    Where does she work? What has she investigated? What has she published?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 6:04pm

    This sounds like...

    Complete Buhlshit.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    aidian, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 6:53pm

    An off the record comment?!?

    Since when does something not being "on the record" have some sort of legal weight? That's sorta beltway-centric journalese that means nothing in english and even less in court. Who is this idiot?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Brian LaSorsa, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 7:01pm

    Her first and last name sound so much like "terrible" that at first I assumed she was randomly trolling people.

    It's weird to see a "professional" reporter (who's evidently trained well enough to have written for Forbes and The New York Post, etc., at that) act so hostile toward the Internet.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:01am

      Re:

      "Her first and last name sound so much like "terrible" that at first I assumed she was randomly trolling people."

      Me too, but she's not even the only person with that name on LinkedIn by the look of things.

      "trained"

      Maybe that's the problem. She's been told how to work in an industry and hasn't got the intelligence to work out that many of the rules have changed. A lot of journalists simply don't like the way the fundamentals of their industry have changed, and don't really understand how to use the internet. Especially in the era of social media where some people don't quite grasp that what they're saying is by definition public (and on Twitter especially, where you don't get the granular privacy control you get with Facebook, etc. - but then keeping things private is completely against the point of the service). None of that was covered in their journalism classes, so they prefer to ingnore the differences.

      She, of course, has the option to merely not use Twitter if she doesn't like the way her tweets are interpreted and used, but her reaction does sound like someone spoiling for a fight rather than someone genuinely offended.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 7:33pm

    Interesting she hasn't "investigated" this issue and reported on it for her website, afaict. And she really ought to hide her whois info....

     

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

    •  
      icon
      alanbleiweiss (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:51am

      Re:

      OMG you are such a hacker! How dare you breach her privacy and discover her whois information! Don't you know that whois information is not for general public view, and that searching such information is hacking? And as Carmen Ortiz has confirmed, a crime is a crime! And all you hackers should spend 50 years in jail for such terrorist acts!

       

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

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:04pm

    I read the heading, immediately thought "Oh crap more Crystal Cox bullshit.. what now?" and then was mildly surprised to see that other 'Investigative reporters' (and I use that term very loosely) are taking up the batshit craziness too!

    And then read that Bennett, Randazza, and Popehat (Ken) are all mentioned too... shades of deja vu - Muwahahahahaha [this is an in joke for those not laughing]

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:22pm

    For more IP fun, check out the big honkin' ridiculous hoolabaloo kerfuffle with copy and pasting worthless blog shit over at Gene Quinn's web site:

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/03/consternation-over-inability-to-copy-and-paste/id=3472 3/

     

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

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:38pm

      Re:

      LOL..

      I went there, read a bit.. started to fall asleep.. then thought "What the hey.." so I turned off Javascript (Yes minions! Bow down to my hacking prowess *rolls eyes*), copied the whole page via mouse select then pasted it into a text document.

      Then deleted the document because that's all that post deserved.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:18am

        Re: Re:

        I just can't believe that in 2013 people still try to block copy and paste on the client side using Javascript, is the apice of stupidity, the reason is simple he probably paid someone to do it, the guy most likely told him it was a waste of time or if he was dishonest kept quite, basically giving money for free to the web-designer.

        How stupid one has to be to waste money on something that everyone knows how to circumvent?

        Here are other ways:

        - Code:
        javascript:void(document.oncontextmenu=null)

        - SHIFT+F10 (opens the context menu)
        - CTRL+U(opens the source view)

         

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

        •  
          icon
          G Thompson (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          How dare you give away my secrets of Hacking!!!! the horror of the unwashed ...ok.. ok.. the washed, knowing my secrets of coding awesomeness is wrong and might eventuate in knowledge being learnt!!! Think of the children!!!

          also I cheated and used a Firefox extension called QuickJava with nice icons that turns off/on JavaScript, Java, Silverlight, CSS, Flash, Cookies, Proxies etc when you click them ;)

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            OMFG YUO ARE IS TEH HAX0RZ!!!! YUO MUST ROT IN JAIL AND PAY ME MILLIONS FOR YUOR VIOLATIONS OF COPYRIGHT, COPYWRONG, TWITTER RETWEETS, AND ANYTHING ELSE I CAN THINK OF LATERZ.

            DIAF!

             

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

        •  
          icon
          Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The singular of "apices" is "apex".

           

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

    •  
      icon
      alanbleiweiss (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:59am

      Re:

      so instead of going after the people he is upset about scraping and redistributing his content, especially the ones he claimed were doing it repeatedly, he just annoys legit site visitors. Nice.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Teri Buhl, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:38pm

    Tim - I would like you to reach me for comment. You missed that jurno step before you went to print.

    thanks,
    Teri
    teribuhl@gmail.com

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      caris, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 8:59pm

      Re:

      Hahahahaha. How meta.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 9:13pm

      Re:

      This whole article and opinion piece was instead about what was publicly available information talking about world viewable twitter comments and specific blog posts by others about yourself.

      Though it might be sometimes advisable to include a "jurno [sic] step" of contacting one of the individuals that third parties talked about it is not a requirement legally nor sometimes ethically if instead you are only talking about other news sources

      TD is not a journalistic endeavour in the normal investigative sense instead it is a site designed to "analyze and offer insight into news stories" [From the about page].

      I'm sure Tim would love to hear your side of any of this though maybe what you could also do is write your own response on your blog to Mr Bennett and let Tim analyse and offer insight on that instead. Or place a comment here as well stating your views.

      Though even commenting on a story that is not painting you in a good light is a very positive, mature, and welcome first step.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 10:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Though even commenting on a story that is not painting you in a good light is a very positive, mature, and welcome first step.

        LOL, that ship has sailed.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:57am

        Re: Re:

        "Though even commenting on a story that is not painting you in a good light is a very positive, mature, and welcome first step."

        A first step? Perhaps. It's 50/50 whether it's a first step towards giving her side of the story, or a first step towards asking how much libel insurance he carries. Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 10:28pm

      Re:

      Aaaand that was Teri Buhl's comment, ladies and gentlemen! I hope you enjoyed it!

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re:

        ...and by reading said comment brings you under the full weight of the hammer of the law, including copyright, DRM, libel, slander, public intoxication, speeding, double-parking, shoplifting, and jaywalking.

        Please await my E̶x̶t̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ legal teams' contact, at which time we will determine how much much to rip out of your butt. We promise to leave absolutely nothing.

        Thank you for your cooperation.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:25am

      Re:

      "jurno"? Surely you don't mean the abbreviation for journalist commonly spelled "journo"?

      By the way, this is an opinion blog, so there's neither "journos" nor indeed "print" here. It's also a very popular one, so it's probably not a good idea to put your email address in the body of your own comment since this will not only get picked up by spammers who mine sites like this for such addresses, but you're also inviting potentially more derogatory comments from people reading. People who will not have any connection to this site, but you've definitely invited them to email you.

      In future, it might be better if you made comments without giving personal details, and also learn the nature of a site before you start using it. You can contact the site privately through the links at the bottom of the page as well.

      Oh, and did you know your site's down right now?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:56am

        Re: Re:

        Wow. Not the brightest bulb on the string, is she? USC must be really proud.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        art guerrilla (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:15am

        Re: Re:

        just one minor point:
        i put my 'anonymous' email eddress up here (and scattered all over the inertnet tubes), and get very little spam/etc...

        not sure if it is because my ISP's spam blocker is good, or what... but the 'risk' of putting up your email eddress is overblown... i mean, to a large extent, it *is* out there already, putting it up another time or two on the web doesn't make you suddenly more vulnerable...

        just sayin'...

        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof

         

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, on the evidence presented to me, you don't. Perhaps you enter your email in the relevant box when you comment, but that's private and used for administration on the site for login, and for the site to know if you want to be emailed when a thread you're interested in is commented on. It doesn't appear on your profile page.

          In other words, your email entry on this site is visible only to Techdirt. I can't see it. She pasted her email into the body of the comment itself, making it public to everybody reading the thread. I can speak from experience that making your email address public can be a risk, but I was also considering personal attacks from people reading this article as well - attacks she would no doubt blame on Techdirt although neither Mike nor the regulars her would be at fault.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:30am

      Re:

      What are you gonna do, you pathetic little twerp? Sue Techdirt?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:05am

      Re: protip for holediggers...

      STOP digging, idiot...

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:19am

      Re:

      That is freaking Hilarious! Awesome!

      You would get my vote for funniest comment, for sure.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 11:12am

      Re:

      "Hi! I'm Teri Buhl; and I'm a copyright troll, IP extortionist, and an alleged journalist. I have also expanded out to include pedo-stalker, trust-wrecker, life-destroyer, and journal theif.

      "I am a psychosociopath who will stop at nothing to get what I want. If I'm being nice to you, you should watch your ass, because I'm about to rip something out of it that you might not want exposed.

      "Please forward all correspondence to my associopath lawyers, who will just sue you for everything, and make us rich. And don't ask for mercy or understanding: I don't care, I'd just as soon eviscerate you as look at you. I only want your money.

      "Thank you for your coöperation!!

      "Sincerely,

      "Teri the Teribuhl"

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      kenichi tanaka, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:47pm

      Re:

      You're an idiot. There is no jurno step and nobody is required to contact you. And, you need to learn how to spell "journalistic" instead of using poor grammar.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      weneedhelp - not signed in, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 10:39pm

      Re:

      Teri - I have a shovel for you... carreon please.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:16am

      Re:

      Wait, Teri, for the record, is your comment "on the record" or "off the record"?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 9:02pm

    It's a trap!

    IT'S A TRAP!
    IT'S A TRAP!
    IT'S A TRAP!
    IT'S A TRAP!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    rosspruden, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 10:32pm

    All Tweets are Public Domain

    Bad news, Teri: you can't copyright a tweet because copyright does not extend to short phrases.

    It's like talking in public and then insisting nobody repeat what you just said, or comment about it... at all. Good luck with that.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      alanbleiweiss (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:03am

      Re: All Tweets are Public Domain

      although she could follow the lead of the Olympics Committee - if they're able to trademark "2014" maybe she can trademark each of her tweets. Yeah. That's the answer...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        alanbleiweiss (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:06am

        Re: Re: All Tweets are Public Domain

        ah I see the trademark path was suggested in the Zeldman article already. Hope I don't get sued for stealing his idea...

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:38am

      Re: All Tweets are Public Domain

      Although the copyright office makes the broad general statement that copyright does not extend to short phrases, that is not actually a correct statement of the law.

      Courts have, in fact, given copyright protection to short phrases. That doesn't mean Ms. Buhl's tweets necessarily will receive copyright protection, or that a quote would constitute infringement.

      Here is a good article on the topic: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_09_stim.html

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:39am

      Re: All Tweets are Public Domain

      Also, Tim wasn't very careful in his article about avoiding other potential causes of action. I won't say more than that, since I'm not trying to get anybody sued here.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 10:43pm

    For someone who's so concerned with retaining strict control of her information, Buhl certainly doesn't seem to mind throwing around other people's information -- even the contents of a teenage girl's personal journal.
    Hey, that teenage girl should have written "nothing in this diary is publishable" on the cover. Problem solved.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Super coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:26am

    Streisand effect ?

    Techdirt really loves it, no? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:58am

      Re: Streisand effect ?

      I wonder if she will pull a Charles Carreon too.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Some Other AC (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:39am

        Re: Re: Streisand effect ?

        She could go for broke and hire Charles Carreon and Prenda Law(John Steele and associopaths) for her legal team. Then we could all take a ride down one really trippy rabbit hole.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:28am

    LOL

    Warning: Nothing in this comment is publishable. Infringement is punishable by death.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 2:52am

    Human stupidity knows no boundaries does it? I predict she'll fall into oblivion after hitting her own reputation that hard...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    vmanda (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:42am

    That actually happens all the time, outlook autofill. People are in a hurry, type the first couple of letters and don't realize it's not the correct person. Happens all the time.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:54am

    By definition...

    If you are using Twitter, by definition you are a 'twit', and I think this case proves the point

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 7:05am

    Is her name really pronounced Terrible?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    mmrtnt (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:20am

    Marketing

    Here's a suggestion: don't antagonize people by attaching implicit legal threats to your public profile. All it does is attract the kind of attention you don't want...

    Maybe if I put some threatening text at the top of my website, I'll get more traffic than just Google and Baidu

     

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

  •  
    icon
    JustMe (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:44am

    Did Teri Buhl break the law?

    I don't know if Teri Buhl broke the law or not when she published the contents of an underage girl's private journal, but it sure sounds like Teri Buhl broke the law because publishing the contents of an underage girl's private journal might be illegal somewhere. Of course, only a court can determine if Teri Buhl broke the law, and far be it from me to even speculate that Teri Buhl broke the law. I probably would not want to be Teri Buhl if a court finds that Teri Buhl broke the law, because then it would be a fact that Teri Buhl broke the law. Also, she doesn't seem to understand The Streisand Effect.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Argonel (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:47am

    Publishable?

    If her tweets are not publishable how is she publishing them to twitter? If she instead meant to say her tweets are not re-publishable how does she expect twitter to provide the service of republishing her tweets in the process of deliviring them to her followers. She keeps using that word, I do not think it means what she thinks it means.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:29am

    It doesn't win you any new friends or followers and it certainly does very little to raise anyone's estimation of you.

    I don't know about that. With a mentality like that, if she gets her name out there she might have a very promising future with the RIAA, MPAA, US Chamber of Commerce, or any of the other "copyright" organizations that live in their own little personal universes.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Co-worker, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 9:49am

    Buhl is nuts

    I worked with her briefly and let me just say, this woman needs professional help and journalism lessons. She's about as bad of a writer as they come.

     

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      icon
      Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 11:05am

      Re: Buhl is nuts

      But, is she cute? And give good [acts of a sexual nature involving her mouth and your gentleman's sausage]?? :-p

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Steve (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:01pm

    More fodder

    Here are a couple links to where Teri Bulh is commenting/providing more info...

    http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/05/teri-buhl-responds-to-techdirts-post/

    http://www.po ynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/203037/can-a-twitter-user-really-prohibit-you-from-republishing-twee ts/
    (she has been positing in the in the comments section to this article)

    Curiously, no public comment on her actual blog.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dude, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:34pm

    Ha!

    Every journalist knows that there is no such thing as off the record. It's a courtesy not a legal point.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    Welcome to the interwebs.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Jahn, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    More about "public" Teri...

    Oh my - she has a LinkeIn profile as well -

    www.linkedin.com/pub/teri-buhl/4/768/83

    and a blog

    http://www.teribuhl.com/

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Tex Arcana (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    Hmmm... A quick scan of the first couple of articles, shows her journalistic bent is toward bringing to light financial institution malfeasance.

    It's too bad that she can't write too well, her spelling is atrocious, and her grammar leaves something to be desired. Oh, and her tendency to throw everyone under the bus, including those that are on her side.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Muskie, Feb 9th, 2013 @ 11:05am

    She reminds me of Michael Crook

    That isn't a good thing. He went around serving bloggers with DMCA notices for reposting a picture of him appearing on a Fox News television show. Google Michael Crook, you don't want to be compared to him.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Truth Teller, Mar 23rd, 2013 @ 7:52am

    Will you be reporting about Teri's recent criminal convictions? She is not a journalist.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Funknahole, Aug 11th, 2013 @ 9:38pm

    So what? she's hot.....

    I'll do her and she can post all she wants :-)

     

    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