# Threats of legal actions gets you banned but... **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 2, 2020, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797 "2020-01-02T19:29:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/21 "2020-01-03T12:19:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I worked for the Old LA Herald Examiner, and iirc, they had no such person to review all or most articles. I suppose the publisher had one on demand to check certain articles that were doubtful, but I dont remember anyone saying “we’ll run this past the legal teams”, except for contracts. Hell, I OWNED two weekly alternative newspapers for several years. I didn’t have a lawyer on staff. When a story was that sensitive I went to a law firm for review. It was expensive as hell. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveroptic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiveroptic/32/8257_2.png) [@Fiveroptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveroptic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/22 "2020-01-03T12:47:47Z")
If I invited someone into my home and they threatened to sue me for a “free speech violation” or something equally as stupid, I would quickly invite them to leave immediately. For starters, I don’t know why someone would even want to stay in my house if they felt as though they weren’t given the same courtesies to speak as the rest, so that’s just weird. But mostly, if you’re coming to MY HOUSE and threatening me because you don’t like the way I run my house, you can get the fuck right back out. I’m not letting you stay so you can find another reason to screw up my day and my checkbook. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/23 "2020-01-03T12:51:10Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I was asking why “threatening harm” isn’t met with automatic banning as well. After all threats can lead to legal issues. Some things go without saying. If you offed a moderator you’d be banned but that doesn’t need to be specified, it’s a given as is threatening harm. Threatening legal action however is another thing and would need specifying. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveroptic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiveroptic/32/8257_2.png) [@Fiveroptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveroptic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/24 "2020-01-03T12:54:24Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Some things go without saying. If you offed a moderator you’d be banned Nah, everything can be “rules-lawyered” if you’re persistent. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/25 "2020-01-03T13:07:37Z")
Speaking for myself here - and not for STM or Tubadiva or anyone else - you must realize that the top goal here is survival of the SDMB. Not discussion, not community, not anything. If the board doesn’t survive then nothing else matters. Given the stated nature from on high that ‘any lawsuit shuts things down’ our zero tolerance policy makes sense. It’s the only sensible thing we can do. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/26 "2020-01-03T13:48:48Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, that’s what I mean. I would think they have a go-to firm in case they want to press a particularly sensitive story, charged by the hour. That’s nothing at all like BwanaBob’s idea that they have a lawyer on staff who isn’t doing much most of the time, and therefore can review the entire message history of a litigious poster and everyone talking to him, then offer a legal opinion on what to say to said poster without anyone paying extra money. “Charged by the hour” is pretty key there, it’s a lot more cost effective to just ban someone than to drag in a charge-by-the-hour lawyer to oversee interactions with them. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/27 "2020-01-03T14:12:49Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > That’s nothing at all like BwanaBob’s idea that they have a lawyer on staff who isn’t doing much most of the time, and therefore can review the entire message history of a litigious poster and everyone talking to him, then offer a legal opinion on what to say to said poster without anyone paying extra money. “Charged by the hour” is pretty key there, it’s a lot more cost effective to just ban someone than to drag in a charge-by-the-hour lawyer to oversee interactions with them. I never once said that the STM would/could have a lawyer review every message a poster has written. Please reread the thread. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/28 "2020-01-03T14:17:25Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > It was always the Reader’s position that the day they received a lawsuit on our behalf (no matter how frivolous) was the day the SDMB would be closed down. Their attorney informed us that the cost of representing even the most ridiculous lawsuit would be in the tens of thousands of dollars and probably lots more. They weren’t going there. Without wanting to tempt fate I do have to ask the question, why then do they bother keeping it open at all? Seems like a prime candidate for closing a stable door after the horse has bolted. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/29 "2020-01-03T14:33:53Z")
The answer has always been that we make a small amount of money for our varied - over time - corporate overlords. We need to make sure that continues. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/30 "2020-01-03T17:49:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I worked for the Old LA Herald Examiner, and iirc, they had no such person to review all or most articles. I suppose the publisher had one on demand to check certain articles that were doubtful, but I dont remember anyone saying “we’ll run this past the legal teams”, except for contracts. I worked for several of the Time-Life magazines and I can assure you that everything printed in the pages of _Time, Life_, and _People_ (especially _People_) is read by someone with a law degree prior to publication. I should probably say “was read,” they also had proofreaders and copy editors back then. Maybe not so much these days. At _People_ we had a long list of stories we wanted to publish but could not because the legal team felt we couldn’t prove to legal satisfaction/were subject to potential libel. The passage of time has brought most of these stories to light (sometimes not until after the death of the parties involved) but were eventually brought into the public, though mostly not by _People_. The _Reader_ was also looked at by attorneys because they had a high amount of investigative content. Not so much today, it was a different time, they used to have a team of reporters that broke big stories. Once upon a time. They ran stories that could have been deemed actionable. _Reader_ stories have sent people to prison. YMMV Jenny your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/31 "2020-01-03T18:02:38Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Without wanting to tempt fate I do have to ask the question, why then do they bother keeping it open at all? Seems like a prime candidate for closing a stable door after the horse has bolted. _Reader_ management used to like us, really really liked us, even though they didn’t understand what we were doing. I vividly remember attending a meeting where the managing editor said, “We don’t know what the F\*\*\* you do, really, but that’s okay.” It’s nice when people have faith in you. Successive management has had more appreciation. As Dr. Seuss didn’t write, \*“An asset’s an asset, no matter how small.” \* Jenny your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/32 "2020-01-03T18:18:00Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I knew Doug Krekorian and, Sir, you were no Doug Krekorian!! :p:p No, he was great. I was a little guy. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/33 "2020-01-03T18:53:42Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I never once said that the STM would/could have a lawyer review every message a poster has written. > Please reread the thread. You said that you thought they would have a lawyer who could advise on how to respond to a poster threatening a lawsuit. Generally in order to provide competent legal advice, they’d need to read everything involving that poster to figure out what might be actionable involving the person and what might be an issue because of things other people have said about the person. Lawyers giving legal advice beyond things like ‘ban him and be done with it’ without knowing the details of the potential case are not doing themselves or their clients any good - so in this case, the lawyer would either review every message the lawsuit-threatening poster has written, or would be giving bad advice. It’s a lot more work than you seem to think it is, and a lot riskier professionally for the lawyer to make statements on off of little knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/34 "2020-01-03T21:57:00Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > Apparently none of you who question this policy have ever been to court. For what it’s worth, I don’t question the policy. Makes sense to me. Don’t feed the mouths that bite your hand. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/35 "2020-01-04T02:22:48Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Without wanting to tempt fate I do have to ask the question, why then do they bother keeping it open at all? Seems like a prime candidate for closing a stable door after the horse has bolted. Probably because the chances of being sued is quite small. ---
**Author:** ![Grestarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grestarian/32/3227_2.png) [@Grestarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grestarian)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797/36 "2020-01-06T23:40:20Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I have never heard of a newspaper having a lawyer on staff who reviews articles daily before publication. They might bring in a lawyer to review a specific article that they are worried might cause a problem, but not a staff lawyer who does that day to day. Do you have any kind of cite for a newspaper following that practice? Back when I was in college, the university’s newspaper’s insurance policy ran out while they were trying to renegotiate the coverage details. In order to continue publishing day-to-day, they used the services of a lawyer, who read every word cover-to-cover before allowing them to send the files to the printing company. > [@Pantastic](#): > > I have literally never heard of a company with under 60 people who keeps a lawyer as a staff member where that lawyer isn’t doing a significant amount of legal work. That sounds utterly bizarre, as lawyers are pretty expensive and there are plenty of law firms that will contract with you to provide occasional contract review on an hourly basis. This, of course, is the big qualifier. It was the University’s staff attorney who was pre-reading everything for them. In the newspaper article about the situation it appeared to be a charitable gesture, but I suspect someone high in the University’s pyramid had some influence in getting that attorney to do extra work each night to keep the college free of libel-suits. And the university’s staff, of course, was a lot more than 60 people. –G [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/threats-of-legal-actions-gets-you-banned-but/845797.md?page=1)