[Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
>   
>> If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter
>> public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
>>     
>
> Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the letter?
> If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed choice. If he's
> made a strategic mistake by publishing the letter and not keeping
> control of the PR then we shouldn't aggravate that unnecessarily.
>
>   
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact.  It would be very rare indeed for 
anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments.  The 
NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service.  How 
often does *anyone* who uses such sites ever get legal advice before 
proceeding?   Some of these require you to agree that you understand the 
terms; that's about like agreeing that pigs can fly.  Some ask you to 
accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the site's home country; does 
that really override inalienable rights in one's own country? Is the 
legal profession in any position to provide valid legal advice at 
reasonable cost to every situation that might be affected?

If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, 
it can't be unpublished.  There are arguments available for it being a 
strategic positive.

Ec