Who's right or wrong is irrelevant at this point. Anyone can sue for any reason. The real crime is how much it's going to cost to straighten it out.

Wanted to let everyone know that I just published an update on my blog about the story. I think these are questions that everyone needs to consider when assessing this court case.

Also, I have not been served yet. I heard yesterday that EWM was served on Friday.

I think the bigger issue will be how this all plays out and its effects on other bloggers. Many are fearful (of what?). My main concern is about whther my free speech rights and blogging will ultimately get limited due to our legal system being manipulated by those with more money than us.

I think the key here is the context in which the blogger referred to the "bankruptcy". To this particular builder and most likely, ANY builder in today's market, the idea of using "Bankruptcy" in the same context of one of the projects viability makes a link which this guy was not buying. We all know there are three sides to the story; your side, my side and the truth! But I would stay away from making statements NOT factually verified. I liked the one guy who said what a great opportunity he now has to get some PR!! Yeah! Costs him a $100,000 to defend himself for utterining a simple, not factually correct statement. I don't know, in my humble opinion, how this is going to get him more business??

Man if this guy goes down for this, there is a whole lotta fish thats gonna fry.

Just like no one faults or invites (Echem!) Google to visit, grab, or list ones website. Google pulls all kinds of data more often than not without invitation or permission.A blog has been defined as the new journalism when in fact it is more akin to the editorial side of Journalism. And more often than not almost by definition sloppy journalism in that it is impossible to get your facts completely straight when you are pumping out posts sometimes 4x a day.

This is a slippery slope when the web lets the laywers ( disclosure: I mean no harm to any one lawyer or the insustry or any future laywer in fact please disregard this commentary as meaningless tripe meant only for ones amusement)....define what it is we all do, instead of the natural evolution. For years there was the idea of being a good netizen. But these concepts often clash with the unwired world.

When/if a lawsuit can stop the flow of information, it is the end of the web. I would think level headed people would ask the blogger to retract his post if it was untrue. But like the real world knee jerk reaction is to laywer everything instead of being a regular good Joe and asking for some sort of reprieve or love.

I once hammered about on my blog about Trulia. CEO Pete Flint took some offense to it and got me on the phone and told me about his business. You know what? It really softened my view.The guy is brilliant.

In my humble opinion(this statement of opinion was told to me by my attorney to place as my opinioon and is of such just opinion and not fact. It is not meant to cause damage, nor harm to the accuser in this story, the blogger, the blog where this comment is placed, not Bill Gates whom gave me IE7 to post it herewith, nor the makers of my Lap Top -Toshiba, nor TIme Warner my ISP. Thus my commentary is in fact I guess worthless as such and why am I even posting? Just forget you read any of it! Ahh that ought Cover me!)

There are so many opportunities to play nice within this new media that is more productive anyway than the traditional way of doing things.

.>>......all statement are of such, just opinions of the author and are not to be construed as advice, fact or anything. Just delete the damned thing!

A very simple truth here which every journalistic knows--you always get your facts straight before you publish. To make a statement which is false is libel. Just because he's a "humble blogger" is a cop-out. This whole "social networking" thing is going to shakeout and start getting some form and function and one of those will be verification of a statement prior to publication. You make a statement as he did, it goes "viral" and, like any rumor, gets legs and gets noticed! I'm not chilled by this whatsoever. If I make a statement saying someone had gone bankrupt it better be verified and have some context to the point I'm making on the blog. I thought his statement defending his use of the word was very lame. Reminded me of our ex-President with his tortured definition of what "sex" is?

I think this unfortunate event has brought to the forefront the difference between opinion and fact. Bloggers should weigh heavy on opinion and stay away from stating fact unless they are absolutely certain (and most of us don't have the time to do the appropriate fact checking). If the blogger in question said "went bankrupt," that would imply filing for bankruptcy to me, if I were a juror. There is also the delineation between business bankruptcy and personal. If you say someone "went bankrupt," and the bankruptcy was actually business, then it would be the business that went bankrupt. Even if this blogger is totally in the wrong legally, it's unfortunate that the consequences are so grave in our current society. I doubt that this real estate guy was damaged to the tune of $25M by one blog post, even if it turns out that there was indeed an error of fact.

Any clue whether these empty houses have a homeowners exemption filed with the county? If so I wonder if that would be fraud.

Just asking

....and I'm definitely David.

Lucus, Hire a publicist and a lawyer right away. Depending on what your lawyer says, this could be a p.r. windfall for you.

Newspapers only know a few story lines. They cram all stories into one of several story lines. Fortunately for you, one of their favorite story lines is David vs Goliath.

Aaron Wall of SEOBook ( I see his ad over to my right of this text). Was sued
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001180.shtml
and as I recall turned it into an event and is all the more famous because of it.

What is traditional offline like lawsuits can backfire when the onliner fires back using her tools.

Does the Builder sue Google news, or archive.org for archiving/caching stories ( I have no idea if they reported on this or not.I just use this as an example. Is )? Is blogger complicit for allowing an anoymous blogger to write bad stuff about someone or something? Especially if it is factual? Does Digg get in trouble for allowing someone to Digg their own story about a builder?

When posters write posts either positive or negative on a subject, they can easily rise to the top of the engines on non-competitive terms (like Brands). I have seen this done as a reputation or brand management tool. This is the new publicity.

And a builder would be better advised to do this, than to waste money suing bloggers. The negative publicity that they have created is already no doubt worst than the damage the lone blogger caused.

There action has created a small local story into possibly a national one.

This is what we are doing on purpose at http://positiveonrealestate.com/member/join.html
in order to change negative news about the local marketplace into positive news.

:-)

It makes sense Jay - it opens our eyes, that's for sure!

"the previous broker is the liable one, no?"

Maybe from a purely legal perspective. But it is kind of gray. The broker is liable for Lucas' blog, and what is on it. I suspect the matter of when something is posted could be debated. Getting into gray areas when it comes to legal matters is scary. If I were a broker, I would want to understand what was on my agent's blog -- regardless of the time frame they wrote it. My brokerage name is (or should be) on the blog. The fact that something was written prior to the agent/broker relationship being established won't be clear to anyone reading the blog -- my brokerage is likely to be associated with everything on that blog, regardless of when it was written.

I like to hear more on this story. Of course bloggers don't want to be sued it's just there opinion they are stating but I like to have more legal input on the subject.

I'll definitely be checking that site out! .....and now the disclaimers.

BTW - Lucas did not work for the current broker when he wrote the post - the previous broker is the liable one, no?

Whew Jay, the new math test to submit to your blog was a tough one.

I'm no lawyer either, but we all should have SOME level of restraint when we are out there shooting off our mouths (in this case fingers) into the blog ether.

A lawyer friend of mine once told me to always preface a statement with - "In my opinion..." Apparently we are still entitled to our opinions in a court of law.

Anybody who chooses to blog seriously should spend some time at the EFF's site.

Who's right or wrong is irrelevant at this point. Anyone can sue for any reason. The real crime is how much it's going to cost to straighten it out.

Wanted to let everyone know that I just published an update on my blog about the story. I think these are questions that everyone needs to consider when assessing this court case.

Also, I have not been served yet. I heard yesterday that EWM was served on Friday.

I think the bigger issue will be how this all plays out and its effects on other bloggers. Many are fearful (of what?). My main concern is about whther my free speech rights and blogging will ultimately get limited due to our legal system being manipulated by those with more money than us.

I think the key here is the context in which the blogger referred to the "bankruptcy". To this particular builder and most likely, ANY builder in today's market, the idea of using "Bankruptcy" in the same context of one of the projects viability makes a link which this guy was not buying. We all know there are three sides to the story; your side, my side and the truth! But I would stay away from making statements NOT factually verified. I liked the one guy who said what a great opportunity he now has to get some PR!! Yeah! Costs him a $100,000 to defend himself for utterining a simple, not factually correct statement. I don't know, in my humble opinion, how this is going to get him more business??

Man if this guy goes down for this, there is a whole lotta fish thats gonna fry.

Just like no one faults or invites (Echem!) Google to visit, grab, or list ones website. Google pulls all kinds of data more often than not without invitation or permission.A blog has been defined as the new journalism when in fact it is more akin to the editorial side of Journalism. And more often than not almost by definition sloppy journalism in that it is impossible to get your facts completely straight when you are pumping out posts sometimes 4x a day.

This is a slippery slope when the web lets the laywers ( disclosure: I mean no harm to any one lawyer or the insustry or any future laywer in fact please disregard this commentary as meaningless tripe meant only for ones amusement)....define what it is we all do, instead of the natural evolution. For years there was the idea of being a good netizen. But these concepts often clash with the unwired world.

When/if a lawsuit can stop the flow of information, it is the end of the web. I would think level headed people would ask the blogger to retract his post if it was untrue. But like the real world knee jerk reaction is to laywer everything instead of being a regular good Joe and asking for some sort of reprieve or love.

I once hammered about on my blog about Trulia. CEO Pete Flint took some offense to it and got me on the phone and told me about his business. You know what? It really softened my view.The guy is brilliant.

In my humble opinion(this statement of opinion was told to me by my attorney to place as my opinioon and is of such just opinion and not fact. It is not meant to cause damage, nor harm to the accuser in this story, the blogger, the blog where this comment is placed, not Bill Gates whom gave me IE7 to post it herewith, nor the makers of my Lap Top -Toshiba, nor TIme Warner my ISP. Thus my commentary is in fact I guess worthless as such and why am I even posting? Just forget you read any of it! Ahh that ought Cover me!)

There are so many opportunities to play nice within this new media that is more productive anyway than the traditional way of doing things.

.>>......all statement are of such, just opinions of the author and are not to be construed as advice, fact or anything. Just delete the damned thing!

A very simple truth here which every journalistic knows--you always get your facts straight before you publish. To make a statement which is false is libel. Just because he's a "humble blogger" is a cop-out. This whole "social networking" thing is going to shakeout and start getting some form and function and one of those will be verification of a statement prior to publication. You make a statement as he did, it goes "viral" and, like any rumor, gets legs and gets noticed! I'm not chilled by this whatsoever. If I make a statement saying someone had gone bankrupt it better be verified and have some context to the point I'm making on the blog. I thought his statement defending his use of the word was very lame. Reminded me of our ex-President with his tortured definition of what "sex" is?

I think this unfortunate event has brought to the forefront the difference between opinion and fact. Bloggers should weigh heavy on opinion and stay away from stating fact unless they are absolutely certain (and most of us don't have the time to do the appropriate fact checking). If the blogger in question said "went bankrupt," that would imply filing for bankruptcy to me, if I were a juror. There is also the delineation between business bankruptcy and personal. If you say someone "went bankrupt," and the bankruptcy was actually business, then it would be the business that went bankrupt. Even if this blogger is totally in the wrong legally, it's unfortunate that the consequences are so grave in our current society. I doubt that this real estate guy was damaged to the tune of $25M by one blog post, even if it turns out that there was indeed an error of fact.

Any clue whether these empty houses have a homeowners exemption filed with the county? If so I wonder if that would be fraud.

Just asking

....and I'm definitely David.

Lucus, Hire a publicist and a lawyer right away. Depending on what your lawyer says, this could be a p.r. windfall for you.

Newspapers only know a few story lines. They cram all stories into one of several story lines. Fortunately for you, one of their favorite story lines is David vs Goliath.

Definitely something to watch and in the mean time I hope my broker remains in the dark. I hate to think about what their reaction would be.

Aaron Wall of SEOBook ( I see his ad over to my right of this text). Was sued
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001180.shtml
and as I recall turned it into an event and is all the more famous because of it.

What is traditional offline like lawsuits can backfire when the onliner fires back using her tools.

Does the Builder sue Google news, or archive.org for archiving/caching stories ( I have no idea if they reported on this or not.I just use this as an example. Is )? Is blogger complicit for allowing an anoymous blogger to write bad stuff about someone or something? Especially if it is factual? Does Digg get in trouble for allowing someone to Digg their own story about a builder?

When posters write posts either positive or negative on a subject, they can easily rise to the top of the engines on non-competitive terms (like Brands). I have seen this done as a reputation or brand management tool. This is the new publicity.

And a builder would be better advised to do this, than to waste money suing bloggers. The negative publicity that they have created is already no doubt worst than the damage the lone blogger caused.

There action has created a small local story into possibly a national one.

This is what we are doing on purpose at http://positiveonrealestate.com/member/join.html
in order to change negative news about the local marketplace into positive news.

:-)

It makes sense Jay - it opens our eyes, that's for sure!

"the previous broker is the liable one, no?"

Maybe from a purely legal perspective. But it is kind of gray. The broker is liable for Lucas' blog, and what is on it. I suspect the matter of when something is posted could be debated. Getting into gray areas when it comes to legal matters is scary. If I were a broker, I would want to understand what was on my agent's blog -- regardless of the time frame they wrote it. My brokerage name is (or should be) on the blog. The fact that something was written prior to the agent/broker relationship being established won't be clear to anyone reading the blog -- my brokerage is likely to be associated with everything on that blog, regardless of when it was written.

I like to hear more on this story. Of course bloggers don't want to be sued it's just there opinion they are stating but I like to have more legal input on the subject.

I'll definitely be checking that site out! .....and now the disclaimers.

BTW - Lucas did not work for the current broker when he wrote the post - the previous broker is the liable one, no?

Whew Jay, the new math test to submit to your blog was a tough one.

I'm no lawyer either, but we all should have SOME level of restraint when we are out there shooting off our mouths (in this case fingers) into the blog ether.

A lawyer friend of mine once told me to always preface a statement with - "In my opinion..." Apparently we are still entitled to our opinions in a court of law.

Anybody who chooses to blog seriously should spend some time at the EFF's site.