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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> 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 it can't be unpublished.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.

This is not a laughing matter. It doesn't matter what the legal merits
are or what is a good strategy, the fact remains that you don't know
what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with you, so just
shut up.

Could we close this thread? It is proving entirely unproductive and
potentially harmful.