Lawyer rating start-up and nascent online community Avvo scored a big win yesterday when it convinced a Washington district court to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed last June. Avvo aggregates available attorney information, assigns subjective (and undisclosed) value to various factors, and comes up with a 1-10 rating. (Initially, Avvo rated every lawyer in its database. Shortly after its launch, and after the lawsuit was filed, Avvo responded to concerns about this practice and altered its approach.) Avvo’s ratings are thus generally analogous to Google’s PageRank: factors are weighted and a score is assigned. The lawyer-plaintiffs in the suit challenged the accuracy and validity of Avvo’s ratings and argued consumers would be misled by the flawed system. Avvo countered that the rating system yields no more than opinions entitled to absolute first amendment protection. The court agreed:

Avvo’s website contains numerous reminders that the Avvo rating system is subjective. The ratings are described as an “assessment” or “judgment,” two words that imply some sort of evaluative process. The underlying data is weighted based on Avvo’s subjective opinions regarding the relative importance of various attributes, such as experience, disciplinary proceedings, client evaluations, and self-promotion. How an attribute is scored and how it is weighed in comparison with other attributes is not disclosed, but a reasonable person would understand that two people looking at the same underlying data could come up with vastly different ratings depending on their subjective views of what is relevant and important. . . . Neither the nature of the information provided nor the language used on the website would lead a reasonable person to believe that the ratings are a statement of actual fact.

This is obviously good news for Avvo, and for any site that crunches variables to assign a rating. As Mike Gunderloy observed when the suit against Avvo was filed, this includes much of the Web 2.0 ecosystem. While Mike was concerned primarily about protections available to rating systems based on user (i.e. third party) feedback, it’s interesting to note that the court’s decision to dismiss the suit against Avvo was based solely on the First Amendment and not on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides limited liability protection for assertions made by third parties. Section 230 played no role here despite the fact at least some of Avvo’s ratings are based on third party assertions, specifically “peer endorsements.” The Avvo plaintiffs apparently “disavowed any claim based on content that Avvo obtained from a third party,” and there was thus no reason for the court to consider or discuss Avvo’s Section 230 defense. Thus, as with the KinderStart case against Google dismissed earlier this year, this court found that an algorithmically generated opinion can’t be “wrong,” “inaccurate,” or “invalid,” and failed to consider the potential (ultimately probable) role of Section 230 in limiting claims of this kind.

If you’re doing business on the Live Web, get thee this Wednesday, October 10, to EFF’s Bootcamp, “a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers on user generated content:”

Does your interactive company have to contend with the maze of laws dealing with user privacy and publishing user content? Want to do the right thing by the online community that gives your business value, and still fulfill your legal obligations?

EFF is hosting a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers who handle issues arising from users and user-generated content. From DMCA to CDA to ECPA, the law surrounding internet content can be confusing, especially for the folks who have to decide on the fly whether to let something stay up or take it down, or whether to give their customer’s name to the FBI agent on the phone. Let us help.

This is an incredible and cheap (between $100 - $200) opportunity to learn how to spot and avoid trouble from the best of the best in this field: EFF’s staff attorneys. (If the registration fee is still too rich for your blood, then apply for one of the 20 available Google-sponsored scholarships, explained here.)

I am hard pressed to conceive of a Web-based communication platform, community, or business model that doesn’t need this kind of overview. For nine examples of why, check out Rafe Needleman’s 9 fun ways Web 2.0 startups can commit legal suicide, gleaned from an interview with Fred von Lohmann in conjunction with the upcoming event:

Von Lohmann’s two big takeaways: First, be sure you know when you’re stepping into a danger zone. Music? Financial data? Private information? Kids? Don’t let yourself think you’re more clever than another industry’s legal machine. Second, realize that no matter how hard you try to stay clean, ‘You’re probably doing something wrong already. For the most part it doesn’t matter, but something just might.’

For yet more examples of the legal minefields Web businesses must daily navigate, you might want to eavesdrop on Fred von Lohmann’s IP and Innovation Policy class at Stanford by way of its blog. Bring your Aleve; plenty of brain teasers there.

Bootcamp starts at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday at Fenwick & West in Mountain View. (Brilliant move by the firm, hosting this. I’m sure plenty of Fenwick’s existing clients are thrilled for the opportunity, and once EFF’s staff has had the chance to terrify educate all the non-client attendees, the stampede to sign the firm’s retainer letter will leave some wondering how they wound up in Pamplona.)

(Image by A. www.viajar24h.com, CC Attribution-2.0)

Following up on the Nixon Peabody song story, it’s worth noting:

• One of David Lat’s related posts is now the sixth fifth Google search result for Nixon Peabody; and
• The saga of the song has been added to the firm’s Wikipedia entry.

Here are the lyrics in their entirety, by the way.

Over at Above The Law, David Lat provides irreverent coverage of the insular world of law firms and the judiciary. Today he posted a song produced by the Nixon Peabody law firm, forwarded by an unidentified tipster, that belongs in the bad business music hall of fame. The song was never intended for external consumption, and it’s not hard to see why:

Instead of laughing this off and embracing its inner freak as Microsoft embraces Steve Ballmer’s antics, the firm has been making saber-rattling, copyright-invoking phone calls to Mr. Lat, requesting among other things that he remove the audio he posted to YouTube. He has declined to do so:

They asserted copyright over the song and asked us to take it down, from our site and from YouTube. We stated our view that posting and commenting on the song constitutes fair use. It also falls within our newsgathering mission as a media organization.

We explained that our site is all about law firms and the legal profession. They said: “We know what you’re about.”

Nixon Peabody’s next logical step, given its difference of opinion with Mr. Lat on the copyright front, would be a DMCA takedown notice to Google/YouTube. This provides a good reason to revisit Wendy Seltzer’s go-round with the NFL, and the DMCA ping pong that ensued when she stuck to her fair use guns. Though the fair use analysis is different here, the same process could potentially follow, warranting another link to Chilling Effects’ Counter-Notification Generator.

Best of luck David, and thanks for the chuckles. (Note to musically aspiring firms and businesses everywhere: there is no such thing as “internal use only.” If you must go down this ill-advised road, think Eagles.)

[Update, 8/24/07:] Seems Nixon Peabody has fired its initial DMCA salvo at YouTube, though Above The Law is still making the “Everyone’s A Winner” audio available here.

[Update, 8/25/07:] Round III: the Internet, or more accurately a clever YouTuber named ChurchHatesTucker, stokes the fire (via Ed.):

Anne Broache has excellent coverage of a House panel’s vote today to extend reporters’ privileges to bloggers who gain some sort of financial benefit. My personal take is Congress should leave the money factor out of it and stick with the definition Anne reports:

The bill defines the practice of journalism as “gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”

Anne quotes various Republican representatives complaining that all one need do is add nominal advertising to a blog to become a financially motivated blogger. Well, exactly. The financial component is an artificial and ineffective band-aid designed to assuage opponents’ concerns that reporters shields should not apply to “nonprofessionals.” But acts of journalism should be acts of journalism, with all the First Amendment privileges associated therewith; money is just the tail wagging the dog. Why should this be so difficult to recognize and legislate?

Chris Pirillo is on Pownce at pownce.com/chrispirillo, and has 69 friends. Or wait, that’s not Chris. I can scarcely catalog the related legal considerations, which include:

Can Chris stop someone from using his name and likeness without his consent? Possibly, under right of publicity laws, but the ones I’m most familiar with preclude unauthorized commercial uses, and the jurisdictional variations are a nightmare.

Can’t Chris sue for defamation if someone is falsifying things he supposedly said and did? Perhaps, but parody is a First Amendment defense to defamation.

Is this parody? No one here has identified themselves as the "fake" Chris Pirillo. Under trademark law apparently, “A parody must convey two simultaneous–and contradictory messages; that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. To the extent that it does only the former but not the latter, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the consumer will be confused.” From Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 886 F. 2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989). (Via Chilling Effects) (I’m not sure if the same requirement extends to parody in general, and haven’t quickly found anything on point.)

Does Chris have trademark rights in “Chris Pirillo?” Let’s assume yes. And let’s assume he wanted to put a stop to someone else’s use of pownce.com/chrispirillo. Do anti-cybersquatting laws extend to other level domains? Is something to the right of .com, etc. even an other level domain? Would Chris have recourse against Pownce, the faux Chris Pirillo Pownce user, or both?

How about tags?

(My head hurts.)

After years of "fired blogger" stories in the headlines, it’s fairly well understood that a frivolous, embarrassing, out-of-context, or ill-considered online data trail can and does cause problems for employment candidates and employees. But when CollegeRecruiter.com asked employment lawyer and blawger George Lenard to examine the increasingly common employer practice of using Facebook and other social networking tools to check up on potential hires, George produced three thoughtful and informative posts describing how candidate data can land employers in hot water as well. While employers might consider online sleuthing thorough or clever or both, the reality is that if information concerning protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, or age) is disclosed and the sleuth-ees are not hired, employers may find themselves on the wrong end of discrimination claims.

I had a number of follow-up questions for George after reading his series, and he was good enough to provide answers. Our discussion follows, as well as links to the series itself.

My first question was about whether fine-grained privacy controls solve the problem: if a person’s social networking data is sufficiently restricted does this become a non-issue? George says not necessarily.

Denise: One thing I don’t see addressed: one of the most powerful features of Facebook (and a host of other social networking sites) is the fine-grained privacy control users have over the visibility their data. Often, only “friends” have access to the kinds of details George discusses. But, lots of people do make their data more generally visible. It’s ironic that employment laws are such that though “the public” may be invited to view such information, lucrative damages awards or settlements could be associated with doing so in the context of employment or potential employment.

George: The Wall Street Journal recently had a column on what to do if your boss wants to be your “friend.” Extremely close to home (where my daughter works), a bunch of kids got fired last week based on pictures posted on facebook. They may have been on a “friends-only” profile, but the URL history trail of kids viewing them was left on a work computer, and, in any event, one of the managers was a friend of the poster so would have had legitimate access. It seems the privacy controls do provide a legal basis for “reasonable expectation of privacy” claims, but as a practical matter there may be fairly simple ways of getting around them. Such as using a computer that has a password memorized in order to gain access, essentially impersonating that user. Probably illegal, perhaps under federal computer fraud and abuse act, but you may lose your job or not be hired without ever knowing that this snooping occurred and was the reason why.

I next wondered, since George’s series focused on the hiring process, whether the same concerns also affect existing employment relationships and potential wrongful termination claims. Yep.

At first I only thought about the hiring context because this was the manner in which the question was posed to me by Steve Rothberg of collegerecruiter.com. Yet I had previously done a series on termination of bloggers.

In my career representing employers in employment law matters, termination cases have dominated over everything, except perhaps sexual harassment. I suspect when someone is not hired for a particular position, it is not perceived as such a damaging event compared to termination, although both result in lost wages. Nonhiring is so much more frequent of an experience for job seekers than termination for employees. And reason for suspicion of employment law violations is less likely to be apparent. Arguably, proof is also more difficult. If there were a thousand applicants for one position, how do you rebut the employer’s contention that someone else was better qualified?

In any event, I think the concerns about the lawfulness of accessing personal information are pretty much the same for termination as hiring.

One exception would be that a current employee has probably given up any expectation of privacy in Internet activities that take place using the employer’s computer systems. It is certainly a routine element of a recommended employer policy regarding computer systems to inform employees that their usage may be monitored. In other words, for reasons predating blogs and social networks, employers have had reason to take steps to defeat any claim of employee privacy rights with respect to use of employer systems.

In the incident I mentioned involving my daughter’s coworkers, such waiver of privacy rights was probably a crucial element It is my understanding the employer found the damning evidence because the employees had viewed it using the employer’s own computers, which the employer then had a right to access (or assumed that such right).

Applicants would not have waived their privacy rights (if any exist) in this manner.

The discrimination issues would also be the same to a considerable extent, with one obvious difference. With applicants, I expressed concern about “too much knowledge,” referring to gaining information about applicants via Internet that could be claimed to have given rise to discriminatorily motivated decisions — and doing so at an earlier stage in the application process, sacrificing the employer’s ability to use the defense of ignorance (e.g.”I didn’t even know he was black”). Obviously, with a discharge of existing employees, this defense is less likely to be available (though it was at issue in a case that was almost decided by the Supreme Court – search “cat’s paw” in my blawg if you’re curious).

Back to the question of privacy controls and restricting data access to “friends,” I was curious about the enormous professional networking role played by the social networking process. Many understand, and indeed fervently anticipate, that their social networking efforts will play a productive role in their professional life. In such an ecosystem, employers, potential employers, or their representatives routinely have “friend” access to data a person might otherwise restrict. George thinks employers in this sort of relationship would likely escape discrimination or privacy related liability, but it’s not a slam dunk.

It seems that making someone a “friend” waives any conceivable privacy claim as to the information you have made available to “friends,” regardless of the purpose for which they use the information. That is, the “friend” is not invading a privacy interest if they access the profile and directly use information on it. However, the election to limit the information to “friends” creates a privacy interest as against all non-friends. This interest might be violated if a “friend” communicated the information to others for purposes of employment decision-making. In this regard, it is not equivalent to “the candidate volunteering the information.” It’s as if I said “Denise, confidentially, just between you and me, my parents are Jewish”; not as if I said “my parents are Jewish.”

Along these lines, I also wondered whether it would make a difference that a candidate’s “friend” was not directly involved in the hiring process, but perhaps just shared the information with those who were.

Yes, as I indicated, I think passing it along is different than directly using it. So if the friend is the sole decision-maker, or if the friend keeps the private information to himself/herself, but recommends the “friend” as a candidate without mentioning such information, I see no privacy issue. Of course, the “too much information” problem applies to anyone who gains the sensitive information in any manner — including “friends.”

Finally, George offered this:

I just found this, in a Jay Parkhill post citing my blog: “Permission to one use does not mean permission to others, but the technical tools can’t always recognize these distinctions. A friend can give me special permission to see his/her semi-private Flickr photos. Do I violate my friend’s copyright or privacy rights if I stream those photos to my own blog- with unrestricted access? Probably yes, is the answer. Given how easy it is to do that, what are the consequences and how can we address it? Good questions- no sure answers.”

Seems a bit analogous to what I said about using your “friends” access to provide info to your employer, which is contemplating hiring your “friend” (ironically, perhaps on your recommendation). Your “friend” granted you permission as “friend” to view, but not necessarily to transmit to your employer in this context.

A very nuanced understanding of “private” that may be lost on judges who don’t use these apps and thus feel “the Internet is public space, and that’s that.”

I think most judges, especially at the appellate level, will grasp the nuances, but will need to be educated carefully, perhaps with demos or screenshots showing the complex privacy controls now being offered.

It may also help to remind them that even in the familiar physical world privacy is not all-or-nothing. My (admittedly imperfect) example: I invite you to my home for a party. You use the restroom. While there, you open a closed medicine cabinet and snoop on what prescriptions I have in there. Can anyone say I gave up reasonable expectation of privacy in that information by inviting you into my home and allowing you to relieve yourself? (I admit I’ve never researched non-cyberspace privacy cases involving such issues.)

Indeed. The Live Web is not backward compatible with a world that assumes the mebranes around our personal and professional lives (and information) are impermeable.

For further proof, I commend to you George’s whole Facebook series:

• Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?
• More on using facebook et al. in recruiting and hiring (Part II)
• More on using facebook et al. in recruiting and hiring (Part III)

[Update:] Bonus link: Your boss could own your Facebook profile

(Mark Lemley, Maren Christensen, Daniel Cooperman)

There’s a group of high profile in-house counsel and legal luminaries who participated today in the General Counsel forum at Stanford Law School’s Fourth Annual E-Commerce Best Practices conference, including:

(Clint Smith, Kent Walker, Ian Ballon)

The session focused on legal issues related to doing business globally. My notes follow.

“Being a GE company has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, and if they ask you, tell them I said that.” Maren Christensen, on having lots of resources to address developing legal issues as they arise.

MySQL’s Smith, after Daniel Cooperman discussed Oracle now having a blogging policy: “I decided last week not to have a blogging policy.” “It’s more important to me to have a really good external communications policy. The same rules should apply. I try to lift it up in terms of generality.”

Google’s Kent Walker: “For us, we have a culture of innovation. At the same time, we have a very decentralized, participatory kind of company. It’s out of that consensus that we try to get something. It’s a process of evolution and pulling all the best ideas to the fore.”

Question: what percolates up to the GC level, and on up to the CEO?

Kent Walker: We need to keep morale high and at the same time be responsive to clients. It tends to be somewhat reactive. 50% of our revenue is international and that creates a whole new class of problems. You find yourself drawn into problems that arise when, for example, you’ve managed to insult the King of Thailand.

Clint Smith: Using IP in our contracts to strike the appropriate balance is probably the most important thing we do.

Daniel Cooperman: It’s quite important that you stay current and can anticipate the CEO’s decisionmaking process. It’s up to the GC to take the initiative to come forward and raise legal issues with the senior exec team concerning the things that are on their desks. Identifying experts both within and outside the company is important to getting projects done efficiently. In the area of keeping you up at night, the global nature of business ranks high. You can communicate policies, but not always be certain the policies will be communicated effectively and followed in the heat of the moment. General Counsel are also gatekeepers according to the SEC and are charged with getting the Board the information they need and making sure the Board is consulted regularly. The whole area of corporate governance has undergone a major change in the last 5-8 years; GC’s now have potentially criminal exposure if they get it wrong.

Maren Christensen: “The three main things that keep me up are: piracy, piracy, and piracy.” If we can’t find ways to stem the tide, we are going to go the way that the record companies have gone, and other companies before us. Maren travels the globe regularly to address these issues.

Kent Walker: On the structural side, every time a company goes international there’s an immediate tension. You need to have teams in those regions. Once you empower those folks, there’s an immediate tension between the folks in the U.S. and the folks on the ground, in-country, who probably want to manage things in a slightly different way. Substantively, particularly on the Internet, we have a single global platform yet hundreds of different nations and thousands of different cultures all drinking out of the same pool. This feels like one of the most important things we’re working on internationally.

Clint Smith: We have employees in more than 30 companies, and handling the IP, the options, the employee withholdings is quite a challenge for such a relatively small company.

Daniel Cooperman: “There are alot of things you can’t do in France.” Re implementing “whistleblower hotlines” as requires under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Maren Christensen: One of the greatest challenges of doing business globally is actually knowing what’s going on in all the companies in which you do business. For me that means at least a weekly call with the senior lawyer in every country and for every one of the business lines. We’ve just started up a new business, a new international studio headquartered in London, which is going to be a lot of fun, but it’s one of those things that you need to be sure is all done right. You need to be able to count on the people on the ground and in the trenches, and talk to them a lot.

Question from Mark Lemley about management style for an international business. It sounds like each country gets its own set of procedures?

Maren Christensen: “Particularly France.” (Laughs.) Discusses DVD copying case Universal won in France. “We had a lot of good meals along the way…” (More laughs.) Discusses the fact they have and keep hiring local legal experts around the world.

Daniel Cooperman: points out that even jurisdictional differences within the U.S. complicate matters. Least common denominator approach is appropriate in many cases, but hard to apply in areas like privacy, where passions are high on all sides of the issue. Participants in this industry play a very active, a proactive role, in encouraging government officials to address jurisdictional disparities in the law.

Kent Walker: The EU has its own ideas about how long an Internet company must keep log data…this is the kind of thing that can wind up driving a global standard. We like to keep our employees out of jail (a real issue for both eBay and Google), and yet being a force that drives change. We’ve had issues with our hosting services (Blogger; YouTube) globally: Ghandi pole dancing in India; insulting the King of Thailand. Things that on their face may seem fine to us raise difficult, philosophical, cultural issues in other countries. We’re working very diligently with courts and governments to figure out what all the right answers are here, but it’s not always very clear.

Audience question re enforcing their company’s code of business ethics and conduct:

Daniel Cooperman: We meet regularly to discuss the issues, we call them cases, that have come up under the code and the kind of punishments, disciplinary measures we’re taking. You have to have a set of principles that guide the company globally. There are no set of principles that stop at a nation’s border.

Kent Walker: When you try to roll that code out in Germany, France, etc., you may need to adjust the code around the margins.

Maren Christensen: Places like China can of course be a problem too. Our problem there (well, we have many problems there), is with manufacturers and licensees to make sure that we don’t have child labor and other conduct that our code of conduct does not abide.

Daniel Cooperman: Some countries are extraordinarily corrupt, no matter how you look at it, and training people on your code of conduct, that this is not the way a U.S. company can do business, is very challenging.

Question from Michael Traynor about cases where injunctive relief has been the remedy.

Kent Walker: “Thank you Jay, wherever you are.” (Jay Monahan, who is “singly responsible” for the eBay/MercExchange outcome in the Supreme Court.)

Daniel Cooperman: We’re all delighted that the issue of mandatory injunctive relief in patent cases is off the table. We’ve got a ways to go, a number of major areas for patent reform.

Maren Christensen: We agree with that. You probably don’t think of patents being our lifeblood, but with digital distribution they’re increasingly important. Hats off to Jay.

Audience question re employee compliance with company legal policies.

Maren Christensen: discussed the importance of senior people actually showing up to emphasize the importance of training. I don’t see this getting any better by the way.

Daniel Cooperman: There’s a dizzying array of these policies, it’s difficult for employees to absorb it all. Keeping it lighthearted and fun helps. Having an effective tone at the top is vital, emphasizing the importance of these policies, and making sure there are consequences for violations.

Kent Walker: All those disclaimers and warranties on your lawnmower don’t actually make it safer.

My thoughts about consensus on a blogging code of conduct are unchanged:  consensus is unlikely, but the discussion is useful.  Here are some comments I sent this morning to an editor at Der Spiegel Online (is it just me, or is the tenor of these questions in keeping with a certain presumption of loutishness?):

> - Is self-regulation a sign of profesionalization? Is this something good
> for Blogs?

No, I don't think there's any reason to equate the two, or generalize
about the blogosphere becoming more "professional" or otherwise.  Some
blogs are professional; some are not and never intend to be.  The
diversity is what makes blogs a rich and vibrant experience.

Regarding whether proposed codes of conduct are "good" for blogs,
again it's futile to generalize.  I think blogging codes of conduct
will continue to develop incrementally and organically, and will be
put forth and adopted by those who feel a particular set of norms
reflect their values.  For as long as I've been paying attention
(since 2001), I haven't seen any widespread consensus develop around
any particular proposed code, and though Tim O'Reilly's contribution
thus far is the most visible, it does not appear as though it will be
the exception in this regard (see discussion at:
http://www.techmeme.com/070409/p7#a070409p7).  I don't see this as a
question of "good" or "bad," but rather an experiment.  It will
resonate with some, but not others.

> - Why do Bloggers need a codification of rules for getting along? Where
> are laws and where is common sense not enough? And why is this so?

Ideally, laws intervene when the social compact breaks down, or when
blameless parties need protection.  There's no "need" for a
self-imposed set of rules per se.  But, again ideally, legal
institutions attempt to foster conduct that reflects good public
policy.  When it comes to the Internet, at least in the U.S. lawmakers
are perpetually challenged to determine when a laissez-faire approach
best serves that end, and when more formal rules and consequences are
in order.  Thus, as a practical matter, bloggers who sensibly
self-regulate can provide an atmosphere that is more comfortable for
their users, and afford themselves some cover from laws that seek to
discourage wrongful acts by spreading responsibility.

> - Does the blog scene benefit from this debate about a code of conduct (in
> which way: regarding transparency, open debate, bindingness)?

Overall, I would say yes, the blogosphere is particularly well-suited
to open debate and excels at fleshing out the permutations of a
controversy (see http://www.techmeme.com/070409/p7#a070409p7).  The
discussion, and the self-examination it encourages, is healthy
notwithstanding the fact consensus may not be possible, and perhaps
precisely because of it.

> - How would and how should such a codification differ from the press codex
> for example?

By "the press codex," I assume you mean industry-accepted standards
and practices pertaining to journalists.  There are both differences
and similarities.  It's wrong to equate Tim O'Reilly's proposed code
of conduct with something designed to promote the integrity of
information per se.  For that, you might refer to the Principles of
Citizen Journalism (http://www.citmedia.org/principles).  That said,
as is true in the journalistic arena, some or many bloggers may decide
that following certain standards and practices can confer credibility
and limit liability.  It may also serve an end more integral to the
blogosphere than to "traditional" journalism — fostering
conversation.

> - And what's the use of a codex without sanctions?

See prior answer.

> - The lows of US-blog-history from your view? What could self regulation
> have changed?

I can't think of any real "lows;" I've been blogging a long time and
see the trend as overarchingly positive for individuals, businesses,
and institutions.  If you have specific examples in mind I'll be happy
to try to address them.

On YouTube that is, even among Presidential hopefuls.  Check out Joe "First Post" Biden's response to JD Lasica.  Terrific work, Jeff, keep wielding that microphone and encouraging folks to speak into theirs.