Hair Cutter Letter asking me to Remove them from OC Blog

[GunLawyer001]

Rich ~ Guess I should have said "potential battle". I am no lawyer but feel this could have potentially turned in to a legaleeze situation. Perhaps I am wrong.

Norman ~ I was referring to what I would do. So I would rely on my own thoughts to decide what "within reason" is.

Everyone has to decide that for themselves. "Within reason" comes in to play with a lot of decisions we make.

Just my humble opinion.

We all decide what makes sense for us to do, and what the "right" thing is to do. Societal standards aren't much of a guide any more, a lot of what was mandatory is now optional, what used to be prohibited is often a civil right today, and what used to be civil rights are now privileges subject to elimination.

What's left is the Golden Rule and the law. This situation doesn't really implicate the law, because there was neither defamation nor publicizing private facts, no trademark infringement, really nothing actionable at law.

So there's the Golden Rule. Someone asks that their name, or the name of their client, be removed from a possibly controversial context, and they ask in a nice way. Maybe he was nice because he had no legal recourse, maybe he asked nicely because he's a nice guy; we don't know, the word problem didn't supply that info.

Maybe he lied about the staff and customer issues. We don't know that either.

So the choice is between accommodation and refusal. If you KNOW that he lied, treat it as a hostile act and be hostile in return. If you feel his request was out of line, fine, say so. Otherwise, examine the cost to you of being agreeable, vs the cost of standing on your right to say whatever the hell you want. The "battle" here is not open warfare or legal filings, maybe it's just saying "no" or calling for a boycott. Not a big deal, but it was important enough to the OTHER guy that he asked for assistance.

So, the balancing test between your rights and the desires of others. What exactly was the cost of removing the specific mention of the place where he had no problem OC'ing? How did it impact his story?

How would any of us feel if some blog devoted to cat fanciers or model rocketry or gay marriage or The New World Order or whatever fascination some blogger has, mentioned us by name and address in a way that kind of creeped us out? If you politely asked him to not mention you, to not involve your home or business in his bantering, what sort of response would you expect from a decent person?

[GunLawyer001]

unless i'm mistaken, a blog is just an electronic journal which you may allow the public access to. since it's a journal, and anything contained therein would be the personal thoughts and opinions of the person(s) writing it, the chances of getting sued for libel are slim.

as a person who often writes and posts my work to the internet, my opinion is you change NOTHING. the next time you're contacted about it, i'd tell them to kiss my ass.

Look up "publication" as it applies to libel. Any disclosure of false and defamatory material to a 3rd party (someone other than the writer or the subject) counts as publication, whether it's in the New York Times or a post to an Internet forum or scrawled on a bathroom wall.

It doesn't apply to this situation, but I'd hate for you to move forward with your own published musings with a mistaken belief as to potential liability for libel.

[Philbert]

Is this the post in question? The "please see this post" link at the top of the page goes nowhere, BTW.

[The_War_Wagon]

Maybe so, but then you don't have those young cuties rubbing their ........

well you know while cutting your hair.

That's what young cutie WIFE is for. When I want a haircut, I don't want to be shifting around uncomfortably in my chair, and lose the top of an ear, or a side of hair!

Bob

[dman]

I would follow his wishes, and send a letter back to him stating that you have done so. As well as inform him that you will relay the message to other gun owners, and let them know that armed citizens are not welcome in his establishment.

The voice of reason,got to go with you on this one.

[Pa. Patriot]

I would follow his wishes, and send a letter back to him stating that you have done so. As well as inform him that you will relay the message to other gun owners, and let them know that armed citizens are not welcome in his establishment.

The voice of reason,got to go with you on this one.

Maybe my "reason meter" is broken, but isn't that what the original blog is for in the first place?

How, if he doesn't publish the name of the store (public info) is he supposed to tell people that they are not welcomed there, if he doesn't use their name?

[shefearsnothing]

How would any of us feel if some blog devoted to cat fanciers or model rocketry or gay marriage or The New World Order or whatever fascination some blogger has, mentioned us by name and address in a way that kind of creeped us out? If you politely asked him to not mention you, to not involve your home or business in his bantering, what sort of response would you expect from a decent person?

I have been thinking about this question since I read it...a few hours ago. I mean, I read blogs and postings all over the internet about me both "for" and "against" me in the last month and a half. Many of them mentioned personal details about myself and my family. Some of them true and some of them not. All of them included someone's personal feelings about me. Several of them did include things that could be construed as things that may creep a person out...you know, suggesting things that may be done to make me miserable etc because I am not doing what they want or living my life in accordance with the way they see "acceptable". Now, this isn't a thread about me but since you asked this question and IMO I can answer it as it applies to me very personally....sure, it would be nice if someone removed their content at my request. However, never once did I ask anyone, nor did I run up my attorney's fees asking him to request such a thing on my behalf. People have their right to freedom of speech. I may not always like what they are saying but then I am free to not listen to or read it. I have the right to go or look elsewhere. Sure, I can ask them to remove it but having the expectation that they are going to "comply" because they were "asked nicely" to hide their opinion is ridiculous. Once again, we've become a society that walks on eggshells because omg we might "offend" someone.

It's not like Jon's blog was slandering anyone or as if he was being an asshole about anything. He posted about a "non-incidental" OC experience. Why, 10 months later is someone bothering him about it? I have to wonder who might have read that and took it upon themselves to contact someone and put these ideas in their head about customers not patronizing the store anymore. I don't know about anyone else but as a rule I don't surf the internet looking for blogs to read....although Jon DOES have a link posted right here in his signature. I mean, I am sure there are people who search blogs and read them but seriously, the odds here? Anyway, he didn't post anything slanderous or offensive....I could share tons of things that were slanderous, would probably fall under defamation of character etc which were posted about me. Oh yeah, and I DID have clients reading that crap who asked me about it. Maybe I was just stupid though and should have had my attorney send out "nice" emails. Where I come from, that is what we call "nasty nice".

What sort of response would I expect? Well I try not to have expectations of people in life. This is a large error many of us make IMO. I wouldn't make the request but pretending that I would I would expect a "no".

[mjfletcher]

Look up "publication" as it applies to libel. Any disclosure of false and defamatory material to a 3rd party (someone other than the writer or the subject) counts as publication, whether it's in the New York Times or a post to an Internet forum or scrawled on a bathroom wall.

It doesn't apply to this situation, but I'd hate for you to move forward with your own published musings with a mistaken belief as to potential liability for libel.

Last time I looked (right before posting this) the definition of libel included "intentional malicious or damaging misrepresentation." Stating in his blog that he OC'd in places A, B, and C and there was no response doesn't fall into that definition as it is simply stating the truth.

[GunLawyer001]

Last time I looked (right before posting this) the definition of libel included "intentional malicious or damaging misrepresentation." Stating in his blog that he OC'd in places A, B, and C and there was no response doesn't fall into that definition as it is simply stating the truth.

Right. That's where "It doesn't apply to this situation" comes in.

You can also be guilty of libel through reckless publication of falsehoods, where you didn't know that what you said was false (so no intentional falsehood), but you didn't care whether it was true. That's legal "malice", as in the title of "Absence of Malice" with Paul Newman. And THIS ALSO DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS SITUATION, just to forestall any further rebuttals. It's just another minor correction of a legal statement made by posters in this thread.

[-JD-]

So now, we're "compromising" our 1A rights too? I agree that instigating tactics are a poor choice, but it seems too many people don't realize that you can indeed stand firm in your principles, and do it in a polite fashion.

Had I been the one personally involved, I would have declined to remove the name from the original blog entry. However, being mindful of these supposed 'concerns and fears' of others, I would have posted a new entry, relaying the exchange with the attorney - including the revelation that firearms were not welcome. I would state my respect for all rights (specifically private property in this case), and publicly share my decision to respect their policy and not continue patronizing the establishment - mentioning it again by name, so those in fear could be clear that they would now be "safe".

No need to temporarily leave my gun behind.

No need to not exercise my 1A rights.

No need to have customers/employees fear further exposure to my firearm.

Whoa Guys! Greg nailed it on this one and I think it has somehow been missed.

We are having a strong debate about essentially rights vs. courtesy. Greg's solution means that neither end of the spectrum must suffer almost any compromise.

What the attorney claims is that the blog mention is causing fear because ostensibly Jon may come back some other time for a haircut, carrying a gun. Ok, make it clear that he never will. (As an aside, my personal belief is that the attorney is being at least somewhat disingenuous. He really wants no mention because someone on either side might then decide not to patronize them.)

On the rights side it simply informs with the truth.

Everybody "wins."