Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law

from the let's try this again dept

Yesterday, Tim Cushing wrote a post about Teri Buhl, a journalist who claimed via her Twitter profile that her tweets were “not publishable.” When questioned on this, she threatened to sue if someone republished her tweets. Some knowledgeable lawyers gave their opinion on this (that it was all hogwash), and at least one had a short email exchange with Buhl. Hilarity ensued. You can read that whole thing for yourself.

This is the followup. A little over an hour after the post went live, we received an email from Teri Buhl demanding a “correction” (without explanation) and saying that we needed to call her about Tim’s story:


I would like an editor to please call about the story Tim just wrote on me. Like now

We have no obligation to call her, and given her previous engagements with others, we felt that there was no reason to discuss this with her. She later posted a comment on the post itself, asking Tim to contact her. He did, and she sent over a statement, and a series of other emails, partly (declared by her) “on the record” and partly “off the record.” To be 100% clear: we have zero obligation to not publish her “off the record” comments. We made no arrangements with her to honor her requests that certain comments be “off the record.”

Buhl appears to be under the false impression that merely claiming something is “off the record” leads to an obligation that she not be quoted, and that it provides her some sort of legal status, even when others quote her. This applies both to the original story about her tweets and to her follow up emails. Separately, she asked Tim to provide my phone number, and she called our corporate line multiple times this morning, telling him that she “always” calls a subject for comment before publishing a story about them. That may be her decision as a reporter, but there is no such requirement. That’s not how freedom of the press or freedom of expression works. Finally, Jim Romenesko picked up on our story in his “Morning Report” on his super popular media blog, leading Teri to send Jim the same basic statement she sent us (“on the record”) along with a separate statement suggesting that we had some sort of obligation to contact her before running our story. Let’s deal with that one first, and then we’ll get into her other claims.


“Techdirt did not call me for comment about that story you followed this am [in the Morning Report],” writes Teri Buhl….

“I finally reached the reporter early this am who says he is working at his day job and can’t update the story until he gets home. Then he won’t give me the info to directly reach a techdirt editor.”

Again, to be clear: we have no obligation to contact her before writing a story about information that was made public. For her to imply that we needed to do so is simply incorrect. Tim correctly noted to her that he was not at his computer, but that he had forwarded her emails to me. He did not, as she implies, promise to update the story. He also did send her to the contact page at Techdirt, which is the best way to reach those of us here.

Moving on to the statement. We will break this down, sentence by sentence, leaving typos and grammatical oddities in place.


On Record Comment:

Again, we made no agreement to keep certain comments on or off the record. Yes, it is a journalistic convention that journalists respect such requests when the people are sources, but it is standard that both sides first agree to that convention. It is not a unilateral thing that you can just declare. When talking to sources we generally offer to keep certain comments off the record. Sometimes sources approach us and ask us to keep certain comments off the record, and we then consider the situation and decide whether or not to accept. It is then that the source chooses whether or not to share.

In this case, none of that is happening. First off, Teri Buhl is not a “source.” She is the subject of the story, and we wrote about her comments and discussions with others that made their way into the public record. We have no obligation to keep anything “off the record” nor did we ever agree to any such thing.


My tweets were protected for a long time because I always looked at twitter as a conversation with my readers, not quotes, I’m not reporting news there. I can say silly things some times and I’d like to apologized for my knee jerk reaction to Gideon.

Protecting your tweets is a good idea if you want to keep them mostly quiet, but that is no guarantee that others won’t share them. It is quite common for people to retweet the “protected” tweets of others, often not realizing that the original person had protected their tweets. That said, Buhl here implies that her tweets have been protected “for a long time,” implying that Gideon only saw her tweet as a follower of hers, and that you could make the argument that the tweets were not, in fact, “public.” I would have been willing to concede that perhaps her tweets were for followers only… except that there’s evidence that this is simply not true at all. If you look at Buhl’s Muck Rack page it does not currently show her tweets. Muck Rack is a site for journalists that creates profiles for those journalists and often pulls together their social media presence. Yet, a simple Google cache search for the feed turns up that, as of at least January 23rd, Buhl’s tweets were clearly public on MuckRack. Here’s a screenshot:




Could it be that Muck Rack has a way to display protected tweets? No. The site directly states that it can only accept public Twitter feeds. And, even if Muck Rack was magically reposting her tweets from a “protected” feed, it would still be a case that her tweets were still being made public, thus depriving her of any claim that the tweets were ever private. In other words, despite her suggestion that her Twitter stream was protected for “a long time,” there is substantial evidence that this is not true. If she would like to present evidence to the contrary, we are open to reviewing it. Update: Buhl told Poynter’s Jeff Sonderman that she had unprotected her account “a few months ago,” directly contradicting her suggestion to us that her tweets were protected during this whole thing.


Of course I can’t sue him/her because I don’t even know the person’s real name.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you can sue someone. Has she honestly never heard of a John Doe lawsuit?


Not publishing my tweets is about a copyright issue for me.

For Teri Buhl, perhaps, but not for copyright law for the most part. We’ve actually covered some of the issues about the ability to copyright tweets in the past. There may be some elements that are copyrightable, and many that are not. Even so, whether or not someone then quotes you from your tweets is not likely to be “a copyright issue.” If, as is the case, we were quoting statements made by her (and repeated by others), and adding plenty of additional commentary to it, there is no copyright issue at all. We are quoting her, not “publishing” her work. Furthermore, even if she went so far as to claim copyright over it, the fair use claims are obvious and quite strong.


I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on anything here.


I never print someone’s tweet in a story because 1) I didn’t get that comment from them directly

That is her choice, but it has no bearing on whether or not someone else can do so.


2) tweets can be changed and manipulated.

Original tweets can be deleted, but not changed. So, that’s wrong. Could a third party change someone else’s tweet in the process of retweeting and/or taking a screenshot? Possibly, though that would be quite a bit of effort, and no one seems to suggest that happened here. Buhl’s issue here seems to be that she would not quote a tweet, and therefore, when she declares her tweets not quotable, everyone needs to respect that. That is not how things work.


I ‘ve never had another jurno ignore that request. I think it’s ironic that lawyer choose to do it.

It is surprising that she’s never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it’s because there’s never been any reason to quote her prior to this. And, of course, it’s not true. A quick search on Twitter finds people retweeting Buhl’s tweets publicly prior to all of this happening. Either way, as stated above, there is no obligation not to quote her just because she says so. Also, it is not, at all, “ironic” that a lawyer chose to do so. He did so because he understands the law and knows that the original claim is bogus.


Twitter says I own my tweets and I’m giving them license to use them but I simply don’t think that means I am giving others license. Of course it also depends on what the tweet is to proven I own the copyright.

This is true, but if you are quoting someone and relying on fair use, then we do not need a “license” from either Buhl or Twitter. And, yes, there is also the missing step of proving that what is in the tweets is copyrightable and owned — but also that our use is not fair use, de minimis use, or any other of a long list of defenses.


As far as Mark Bennett – I would like to sue him and see how copyright law relating to tweets and photos in tweets wuld be tested. If can afford to do it I will. There is not a lot of case law for this in the U.S. I am not fan of aggregater sites who take journalist original work, screen grab it, and don’t link or credit back to the original reporting. It think that’s stealing page views and intellectual content.

As a site that reports on all sorts of nutty copyright cases, including quite a few claims from people believing, incorrectly, that aggregation is “stealing,” it is possible that if she did sue Bennett, it would make for an interesting story for us to cover, though the crux of that coverage would most likely concern how ridiculous the case would be and the fact that it has about as close to zero a chance of succeeding as possible. Contrary to her claims, there is an awful lot of case law in the US concerning most of the key issues here, and all of it goes against her arguments.


Tim – please publish this in the story and write at the top there is an update.

I have taken over this story, and am publishing her statement right here in this post (along with our response, obviously). I will, however, add an update to the original post pointing people to this post.

Of course, that was not the end of the exchange. She also provided an “off the record” statement, saying that the background photo on her Twitter profile is covered by copyright, and demanded that we take down the image of her Twitter profile because “as a tech blogger I hoping you will respect copyright laws.” We are leaving that image up, because even if the image is covered by copyright, we are using it under fair use rules, as part of reporting on her story. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to show her profile which includes her ludicrous comment that “tweets are not publishable” (which kicked off this whole thing). Since the bio section of your Twitter profile is able to be changed, it makes extra sense to show a screenshot to prove its accuracy.

It is unclear whether or not Ms. Buhl is familiar with fair use. I would hope that she investigates the issue carefully before further commenting about it or seeking any sort of legal action.

Buhl sent another, separate, email complaining about Tim’s coverage of her arrest, much of which was based on a report from Patch. Her main concern here was that she is disputing the allegations, and she demanded that he note that the charges are “alleged” and that she “denies” them. Of course, both of those things were abundantly clear in the original post. The post does mention that her actions were alleged, and that a trial is upcoming. If she weren’t fighting the charges, there wouldn’t be any such trial. She further claims that “I am actually not charged with invasion or privacy or theft of anyone’s personal information.” Nowhere did we say that she was charged with any of those things, so there is nothing to correct on that front. Either way, in this post, we will note, again, that she is going to court over these issues, and thus, clearly, denies the “alleged” charges against her.

In the end, we’re not at all clear on what she thinks she is accomplishing here, other than calling more attention to her initial claim that her tweets are “not publishable,” and then calling more attention to her overall actions. We continue to stand by our reporting on this matter.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
194 Comments
Kevin Hsays:

Re: Re:

I get these kinds of replies to things on reddit all the time. The thing is when I am just firing off a response while at work or perhaps on my phone I may just glean over a few details as I do it. If I miss something my bad, but generally the overall substance of my statement remains. Given the context of her statements and the way that were made I would say she was doing something similar.

Also as a friend of mine that works for the local paper said when I corrected her grammar…. That’s what a copy editor is for.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: TLDR

Must be interesting to be you. I can imagine reading part of my books, watching part of my movies and playing part of my games and then imagining the remaining part. Good exercise for the imagination!

Other than that, please read it and you’ll see a comprehensive explanation of why Mike took up the story, of what happened, why they are gonna keep up with their course of action and why Tim’s (and this current)are ok and law abiding.

It would be a shame for you to lose that level of enlightenment =)

Trailssays:

Re: Re: TLDR

I also only read the first couple of paragraphs. I assume it goes on to talk about Ponies, the surgical tools market, before veering off into Kirk/Spock homoerotic fan fic.

I shall now share my opinions on this article, considering myself to be sufficiently informed to do so.

Twilight Sparkle is the best Pony, you’re right Mike, so I’ll give you points for that. However, your analysis of the various titanium scalpels clearly misses the advantages of emerging laser technology.

Finally, I’m pretty sure Vulcans aren’t that flexible.

harbingerofdoomsays:

Re: Re: TS;DR

i did not read this very stupid response to a long article. but from the fact that it was already hidden, i take it you said some stupid things, and then were slammed on quite a bit while others made some comments that were either smart or funny.

well done, you must feel…. well im not really sure you feel anything at all so…whatever….

Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep it coming

I’ve been aware of Teri Buhl’s drama for years. I never was privy to her “elite” protected Twitter feed. Annoying that she was a journalist who reported on news that wasn’t accessible to the public (me)! She’s vacillated between protected-on, protected-off for her Twitter feed for awhile. Teri Buhl news stories are always high-drama!

TechDirt showed remarkable restraint and courtesy. Buhl comes off as very arrogant and presumptuous. This is especially so, as she has a pending court case against her for harassment of a minor.

Weird spelling, “jurno”. That’s not a “SoCal Trojan” nor a New Canaan expression. This made me laugh:

It is surprising that she’s never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it’s because there’s never been any reason to quote her prior to this.

Given my low-level curiosity about her seeming (self-)importance for years, I enjoyed this post, and the one prior, immensely. Thank you.

The Old Man in The Seasays:

Entitlement mindset yet again

What is it with all these folkee that they thinkee that they “own” what they sayee?

If you say something in public then you may well get called on it. If you get called on it and you are wrong, admit your mistake and get on with life.

If you expect someone to keep something confidential without having a close relationship with them and fully trusting them to keep your confidences then you are deluding yourself if you expect them to automatically keep your confidences just because you say so. There is no obligation to do so on the part of the hearer.

So one should be very careful what one says.

Nimassays:

“as a tech blogger I hoping you will respect copyright laws.”

…BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I’m sorry, did she do any research as to the nature of this site? A site which frequently and vocally opposes what it sees as the excess use of copyright in stifling expression in today’s culture (both technologically and culturally). How the hell did she think this was going to go?

Deimalsays:

Re: Re:

According to her personal website (teribuhl.com/about), she was an investigative financial journalist at some point. Noting her complete lack of both understanding copyright, libel/defamation law, or to be sure, journalistic integrity in general (read the story from 2010 about what she did to get charges laid against her), it seriously calls into question the vetting capabilities of the “respected” financial publications she wrote for (e.g. Forbes, NY Post, Fortune, some others on her personal site). She apparently is only truly skilled at investigating the drawers in a 17 yr old girls room and photocopying her personal journal and posting it to a fake facebook account (the girl btw was the daughter of an ex).

Re: Re:

did she do any research as to the nature of this site?

Well, Mike has stated (repeatedly) that he wants copyright laws that will maximize the benefit to the public.

Since that is, in fact, copyright’s purpose, he obviously has more respect for copyright than Buhl does. Or his detractors (like whoever average_joe is pretending to be this week). Or, for that matter, the people who wrote the current copyright statutes.

kenichi tanakasays:

Teri Buhl Needs a Dictionary

Teri Buhl is such an idiot that how does she get away with such poor grammar and an insane interpretation of the English language.

“jurno”

What the hell is that? Does she mean “journal” or “journalistic”? She needs to enroll in an English class and learn how to spell and to understand the basics of the English language.

She’s the subject of a story, not the source, and I can’t believe she has such a third-grade level of comprehension of the English language. And she’s a journalist? Where did she learn how to spell?

Anonymoussays:

Translated statement:

I’ve taken the liberty of translating Ms. Buhl’s statement here


My tweets were protected for a long time because I always looked at twitter as a conversation with my readers, not quotes, I?m not reporting news there.

I’m a journalist who doesn’t understand the basic tenets of journalism, like how interviews work.

I can say silly things some times and I?d like to apologized for my knee jerk reaction to Gideon.

Fuck. I talked to a lawyer and found out I’m full of shit.

Of course I can?t sue him/her because I don?t even know the person?s real name. This was a lesson in tweet protection for me. Asking fellow journos (or bloggers) not to publish my tweets is about a copyright issue for me.

Not only do I make baseless legal threats without understanding how lawsuits work, I don’t understand copyright either.

I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist. I never print someone?s tweet in a story because 1) I didn?t get that comment from them directly 2) tweets can be changed and manipulated.

Not only do I not have the foggiest clue about the copyright, lawsuits, or journalism, I also have no idea how the internet works either.

I?ve never had another journo ignore that request.

Unfortunately I’ve never written anything worthy of being quoted, so I’ve never had to deal with this before.

I think it?s ironic that a lawyer on his blog to promote his business choose to do it.

Oh, I don’t understand what the word “irony” means either. I think it has something to do with someone doing something I don’t like.

Twitter says I own my tweets and I?m giving them license to use them but I simply don?t think that means I am giving others license. Of course it also depends on what the tweet is to prove I own the copyright.

Almost forgot – I don’t know how ToS works either.

As far as Mark Bennett (the lawyer blogger) ? I would like to sue him and see how copyright law relating to tweets and photos in tweets would be tested. If can afford to do it I will. There is not a lot of case law for this in the U.S. I am not fan of aggregater sites who take journalist original work, screen grab it, and don?t link or credit back to the original reporting. It think that?s stealing page views and intellectual content.

Even though I don’t understand copyright, lawsuits, the internet, journalism or a site’s ToS, I still think I know more about them than a copyright lawyer. I mean it’s not like someone who went to school to explicitly study these things could know anything about them, right?


Paging Professors Dunning and Kruger. Professors Dunning and Kruger to the front desk please.

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:

haven’t worked in IT in 20 years

neither have I as a tech. Though you never forget your problem users. Interestingly as an ex Qantas Tech (Aircraft) when pilots or cabin crew used to have idiotic problems we would sometimes put it down to either “defective button actuator” or “seems like there could of been an intermittent short between the headphones” on the maintenance logs ๐Ÿ˜‰

alanbleiweisssays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:

I fried out of tech support, and for the past 18 years have just suggested to friends and family – “have you tried rebooting your computer?” or “did you try to go to CNN.com after you couldn’t get to your own web site?”

Both are essentially communicating the same thing you’re saying, just in a semantically unique way ๐Ÿ™‚

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translated statement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error

This is why tech support generally asks people to insert:

ID=10t

on config files.

LoL

Although I am more of a believer in the “Alan Copper” kool-aid.

Quote:

“Don’t think of the user as making errors; think of the actions as approximations of what is desired”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error

The Old Man in The Seasays:

Re: Re: Re: End User Tickets and the real errors

After nearly 30 years dealing with computers and people, I have come to the conclusion that most problems are a result of poor interface design or poor interface implementation.

There are those characters who should not be allowed anywhere near anything that resembles technology (including fire). I have found most end users do what they do because they have been shown something once only and have never been actively trained.

Having written much software over the years, I try to watch what people actually do and work around any strange behaviour by making it a null action. This seems to prevent most if not all the problems that the end user will call up about (at least with my stuff). The other thing that helps is listening to the end user and understanding what they are trying to do and how they are trying to achieve it and programming accordingly.

Anything not under my control usually gets helpful suggestions which mostly go ignored by the responsible developers.

Anonymoussays:

Reality check! Reality check!

At this point in time, the astute reader will have come to the conclusion that Ms. Buhl’s account has (ahem… Obviously?) been hijacked by 13 year-old trollette who is, at this very moment, texting all of her little friends with details of her latest escapade in grow-up baiting.

P.S. Please return control of this channel to m’lord Tim. He started it! He should have to clean up his own mess (as the armchair quarterbacks among us witness, and find great mirth and LOLs in his public attempts to outwit a freshly-minted teenager).

madasahattersays:

Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot

Two more links, she is claiming bad press coverage is subverting her chance at a fair trial (second link)

http://www.ncadvertiser.com/15736/buhl-waves-right-to-jury-trial-in-harassment-case/

http://www.ncadvertiser.com/18263/buhl-harassment-trial-postponed-until-march/

Trailssays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article from a Google Search - Teri Buhl idiot

I noticed that too. A lot of those comments seem strangely supportive of her and of some of the points she mmakes in her own defense in other venues (i.e. emails).

Anyway, if her lawyer has a half a brain he’ll tell her to stop talking about the case in public already.

Whether she thinks those comments are on the record or off, they could still potentially be admissible against her.

Anyway, she’s clearly a nut, and in need of some judicial smackdownage.

Nigelsays:

Re: Re:

“At least she’s not dishonest like you.” So sayeth dude who cant read the article.

Not withstanding the fact she shamed herself(repeatedly from what I can tell).

Mike’s beliefs are firmly rooted in this site. That his position escapes you is not at all surprising. Keep your pecker up though, you will figure it out sooner or later.

Nigel

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is when you do it like a 10 year old.

The child is the one who runs from every debate, making excuse after excuse for why he shouldn’t answer basic and fundamental questions about his beliefs about copyright. I’m going to keep bringing it up over and over and over again until he actually goes on the record as to his position. He’s clearly lying and being dishonest when he claims to be unable to address even the most basic point.

Want to get rid of me, Mike? Actually discuss the issues directly for the first time in your life. No excuses. No running away. Man up and state your beliefs. Take a position. Get off the fence. WE ALL KNOW YOU’RE NOT REALLY ON THE FENCE!

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It really doesn’t matter anymore AJ. You’ve gotten to the point where you’ve made this “debacle” about yourself and not about the answer to a question, which for some reason haunts you in an almost obsessive way.

The fact that you continue to chide Mike about something so unimportant just proves how childish you are, especially since you do it here instead of possibly emailing him about it or asking through the Google hangout.

So basically you’re not only being a child about it and stamping your feet for an answer you want, you’re also half-assing the attempts to get an answer out of Mike.

Good luck because I’m sure he’ll just continue to ignore you.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“almost obsessive way.”

Erm, way beyond obsessive IMHO.

“something so unimportant”

It’s not even unimportant as it is already answered. There’s many articles where Mike has stated his opinion. Not to the point where he’s written a detailed outline (which is presumably nuanced enough to depend on a scenario rather than a blanket opinion) but a regular reader can easily determine his overall stance. Just as any regular here probably understand my stance and those of other regular commenters – although certain tossers tend to deliberately misunderstand that as well.

Re: Re:

Great job, Mike. You publicly shamed a woman who is not as sophisticated or as intelligent as you. You are a fucking Internet genius. Too bad you’re also too chicken shit to discuss your own beliefs directly. At the end of the day, you’re a bigger idiot than her. At least she’s not dishonest like you.

Are you aware the internet does not revolve around you, much less this small corner of it?

Every comment. ME. ADDRESS ME. ME. ME.

TYPICAL COMMENT: “This post is claims to be about EU concerns with copying levies, but IT’S REALLY ABOUT ME AND MY PERSONAL HANGUP.”

You make the average teenager look worldly, well-rounded and acutely aware of their overall position in the great scheme of things.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don’t you think Mike’s personal beliefs matter? I do. And the fact that he refuses to discuss his own beliefs, while he’s so critical of everyone else’s, speaks volumes about his character. All he wants to do is criticize and tear down. He has no interest whatsoever in having a reasonable discussion about the issues that are fundamental to copyright. All he has are excuses for why he shouldn’t answer simple and direct questions. Either he’s too dishonest or too ashamed of his own beliefs to discuss them. That sucks. It’s not a big surprise though that someone so extremist and so opinionated can’t even begin to discuss his own beliefs. That fits in perfectly with the type of person he is.

iCleverUserNamesays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Don’t you think Mike’s personal beliefs matter?”

On what? Tech news?

Have you actually read his articles? I think virtually every writer here is pretty clear in their opinions in almost all articles.

What specifically is lacking? Do you have any specific topics or posts that show this huge lack of personal belief?

Also, do you understand how absolutely laughable it is that we are talking about this in relation to the story? It would be comical if not so pathetic

jupiterkansassays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As far as Mike’s belief’s go, every single post he makes here is filled with his personal opinion – which is another word for beliefs. So what the hell are you asking for? It’s obvious you won’t be happy until Mike is screaming “I’m a filthy pirate and Google pays me to kill puppies.” Nothing else will ever satisfy you.

Please go away and find something positive to do with your sad life.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah I think that’s pretty much what he’s after. He’s fixated on an image of Mike that doesn’t fit what anyone else is seeing. He wants Mike to specify exactly what AJ thinks he believes so he can go “ha! caught you!” and do… well I’m not sure actually. If Mike ever decided to actually meet his idiotic demand, the conversation would probably turn to “you’re lying that’s not what you really think!” because it doesn’t meet AJ’s distorted reality version, yet AJ would not be able to provide any proof that it’s wrong. Rinse, repeat, until everyone tires and the idiot is finally blocked, at which point he’ll whine on other sites about censorship.

gnudistsays:

Re: Re:

Clearly you’re projecting your own rotten behavior ontu Mike because you never back the dishonesty claim up with anything other than your own dishonesty

By all means tell us more about how Mike was somehow hiding who paid for the sky is rising report dispite having already disclosed who paid for it.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Anyone paying her for her ability to do research needs to demand a refund.
If I see any outlet carry anything written by her I will have to consider if they actually are worth the time and effort, as they have hired someone without a brain.

Ms. Buhl, welcome to the internet. We don’t forgive stupidity, we don’t forget it. Your actions have made it clear you have a flawed understanding of the law and your own abilities. It would be best for you to issue apologies, shut up and GTFO the internet until such time as you can grasp basic ideas. Every single extra word you have said, and misspelled, is costing you any hope of getting future work. There might have an opening at TMZ where they enjoy fanciful stories without basis in reality.

In closing go out with a bang, announce to the world how your going to take me down for disparaging you. Not only will you never get as far as my real name, I will take great joy in showing the world how dumb you actually are on an epic scale.

Oh and this is all off the record… so by your rules you can’t use it. HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA

Tex Arcanasays:

Re: Re: Freedom of the press

“Freedom of the press” also means the freedom to write what you want, how you want, when you want. It also means the freedom to read what you want, when you want, how you want.

Since freedom isn’t “free”, it comes with it responsibility: in this case, the responsibility of the author to make damned sure the facts are facts, the law is the law, and that the truth is being published, even if the author doesn’t like it. As for the reader, her responsibility is to use sense in interpreting what is read, to question what she read, and to do so always, in order to help keep the journalists honest. So, just as journalists keep readers honest (it could be YOU on those pages), readers keep journalists honest as well, by questioning them and making them defend/justify/prove their assertions.

Teribuhl failed her profession and her readers, on all counts.

The Real Michaelsays:

Re: Re: Freedom of the press

“Freedom of the press means freedom of the (printing) press, not some group that calls themselves the press”

Who gets to arbitrarily decide who’s the press and who isn’t? Anyone can be press, just as anyone can be a musician, filmmaker, video game developer, et al. without seeking someone else’s permission. Technology has moved well beyond the limitations of the printing press, in case you haven’t noticed. Tell me, does the First Amendment not apply to phones and computers simply because they didn’t exist back when the Constitution was written?

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press means freedom of the (printing) press, not some group that calls themselves the press

Sorry Tom, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on that.

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. [emphasis mine] Lovell v. City of Griffin – 303 U.S. 444 (1938)

Anonymoussays:

This level of ignorance is very surprising and concerning for a so-called journalist.

Not only is she ignorant of the law regarding reporting of information that is publicly available, but she’s also ignorant of journalistic practices (e.g. when she thinks Techdirt owes her to contact her before publishing their article).

And not only that, but by her actions she is attacking freedom of the press.

“I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist.”

I don’t know what new source would, in their right mind, pay her for this, but whoever they are I would not read their newspaper or website. I’d have to strongly question the credibility of a news source that would hire someone like this for any journalistic work. And if I ever find as much as an opinion column from this lady in a newspaper I read, I’ll cancel my subscription immediately.

It seems anybody with an opinion can be a journalist these days…

Josef Anvilsays:

Re: Re: Good Advice for Teri

The comments are especially hilarious on this one. At first I thought it was just me, but there are a few other comments here that picked up on the irony. She is allegedly an investigative journalist. Really?

If she took more than a cursory glance at this site she would have quickly seen that there are loads of articles about copyright, IP law, and 1st Amendment issues and how abuses are occurring in the digital age.

Rather than comment about her behavior, I think its better to advise her to search through the techdirt archives for stories related to journalism in the digital age. If she did that, she might learn that newspapers are becoming irrelevant because they don’t understand how to service a community. Perhaps she will even take note of how the techdirt community reacted to her “elite journalist” posture.

Legacy Journalists – 0
Intewebs – 1

Surprise alternate ending:
Just maybe Teri Buhl is not as idiotic as we are assuming. She may just be trying to draw as much attention to herself as she possibly can. She is going to trial over her dicey internet behavior and may be trying to get as much strength as possible behind her claim that she cannot get a fair trial because of the publicity on the net about her alleged misconduct.

Basically she may be trying to leverage the Streisand Effect for use as a defense in court.

Some Other ACsays:

Re: Re:

You are assuming that it is within the realm of possibility for her “brain” to get in gear. Based on the linked articles, her own inane statements, and her general lack of anything resembling intelligence, I am pretty certain the gears are fully stripped and may not exist in any usable form.
That being said, Teri Buhl, please keep digging. You have been added to the likes of Charles Carreon, John Steele and Brett Gibbs. Congratulations on your demotion to the rank of internet parasite.

Anonymoussays:

Sympathy

Actually, I found her “clarification” to depict a different side of her. It seems rather obvious she was, at first, frustrated by the interaction and threatened to sue. It’s easy to see twitter as a one on one conversation and sometimes, emotions turns into words too fast. One day later, her head has already started to cool down, but she’s quite fearful. It shows in the way she interacted, considering she’s also involved in some lawsuit, it’s easy to understand how overwhelming this whole situation can be, on an emotional basis. Let’s hope the best issue for everyone, on this one. After all, we’re all humans and we make mistakes.

iCleverUserNamesays:

You don’t know his position on Copyright issues?

Have you even read this blog before this idiot lady made a laughable claim?

Trying to act big with the “You won’t get rid of me!” type posts really doesn’t make you anything other than someone so darn desperate to change the story from the stupidity of this woman to…..Mike’s opinion on copyright which is very apparent from a reading of his stories here.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

What's the point?

This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl’s stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. Congratulations. You just totally burned an unemployed journalist, bro.

You’re right, you’re under no obligation to call her for comment, and you’re under no obligation to honor her requests to speak off the record. But we work on an honor system in this business. It’s common courtesy to allow a source to at least give you an aside on background if they really feel it’s necessary, and it’s just good practice to actually pick up the phone and call someone for comment, especially when you’re slamming them in your publication.

The issue isn’t so much Buhl, because you’re just beating a dead horse by now, but the other sources who won’t trust you in the future now that they know how you operate.

You can establish a bit of trust and extend common courtesies in journalism without being a doormat. It’s to your benefit in the long run, as is learning to use the phone.

In the meantime, totally awesome scoop bro, you spoke truth to power and really stuck it to that unemployed former reporter from a mid-tier local newspaper. SCOOP!

apauldsays:

Re: Re: What's the point?

Good Christ you are a vapid and completely worthless POS. You apparently are to stupid to understand html and hyperlinks. Here is a clue moron… Mike usually only aggregates from other stories (hence the html and the hyperlinks); if you are so incredibly stupid that you can not understand what that means, then it says more about you than it does about him. You are such a pathetic waste of humanity.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: What's the point?

This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl’s stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. Congratulations. You just totally burned an unemployed journalist, bro.

Congratulations, you can’t read. (1) Wasn’t me who wrote the original story. (2) She THREATENED TO SUE a couple of lawyers for daring to quote her public comments.

You’re right, you’re under no obligation to call her for comment, and you’re under no obligation to honor her requests to speak off the record.

There were no requests. She just made a statement and assumed that there was some legal basis for making her PUBLIC statements off the record.

But we work on an honor system in this business. It’s common courtesy to allow a source to at least give you an aside on background if they really feel it’s necessary, and it’s just good practice to actually pick up the phone and call someone for comment, especially when you’re slamming them in your publication.

She wasn’t a source. And, what you consider “good practice” and what actually is a good practice need not be the same thing.

The issue isn’t so much Buhl, because you’re just beating a dead horse by now, but the other sources who won’t trust you in the future now that they know how you operate.

I’m not afraid of that, because we’ve never burned a source. Again, she was never a source. And we’ve always honored reasonable requests for off the record comments. If anyone reads this and thinks they won’t be a source for us in the future… frankly, they’re not nearly smart enough to be a good source.

You can establish a bit of trust and extend common courtesies in journalism without being a doormat. It’s to your benefit in the long run, as is learning to use the phone.

Oooh, real dig there. I use the phone all the time. I call sources and contacts all the time. You seem to think this story was something it was not.

In the meantime, totally awesome scoop bro, you spoke truth to power and really stuck it to that unemployed former reporter from a mid-tier local newspaper.

I’m glad in the scoreboard in your head, this story doesn’t count.

If you actually knew what we wrote about, it fits perfectly with our standard fare, and was our most popular story yesterday. Apparently, people found it interesting. You misunderstood it and you didn’t like it.

Too bad for you.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: What's the point?

“This whole thing seems like Masnick found Buhl’s stupid Twitter profile and decided to call her out for being a baddie. “

Translation: I didn’t bother to read the article. Certainly not far enough to understand who wrote the original article it’s commenting on (not Mike), the fact that the original story was reporting on Buhl’s own actions (attempting to sue other journalists and lawyers for quoting statements she’d already made public), and nothing here was initiated by Techdirt at all.

It really is nice when a person announces themselves as ignorant and uninterested in the truth upfront. It saves a lot of hassle.

“unemployed journalist”

If that’s true, maybe there’s a reason she’s unemployed? Perhaps something related to her actions displayed in these stories and the upcoming court case she has on another issue already mentioned?

“The issue isn’t so much Buhl, because you’re just beating a dead horse by now”

Beating a dead horse? There’s been exactly two stories – one on the original story and this one on her reaction to said story. Why is that overdoing things?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...