Ask PG: Can we have a guideline regarding legal advice?
As we all (hopefully) know, specific legal advice is not something to discuss with the Internet for a plethora of reasons. Anything you write online regarding legal action can be used against your company, whether you run it or not. There is very real damage to be done by not being careful. However, I see too many threads where someone posts a legal tale[1] and immediately the comments fill up with this general template:
I am not a lawyer, and this is not advice.
That said, here's what I'd do:
Can we have a guideline explicitly mentioning armchair lawyering and why it's bad, and why it shouldn't be done? Please?
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256
32 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] thread[citation(s) needed]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+P...
"unauthorized practice of a profession" is not the same as offering an occasional comment on a blog. It's pretending to be a lawyer or acting in a way a lawyer would or charging for it.
For one thing it would be seen as de minimis not to mention the fact that there is no compensation for the service.
Think of it this way. You may need a license to have an office and offer therapy and pass some tests. But do you know of anyone who ever got charged with impersonating a social worker by offering advice for free to a friend?
"I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that."
Sorry this had to happen to you and I see where your caution comes from.
Now, how again is publishing and taking money for a self-help legal book (and indeed suffering NO legal liability for doing so) analogous to discussing the law on the internet with no money exchanging hands?
Again, where exactly are these "cases" of "liability" the OP is citing?
Surprising to get down voted for a comment consisting of "this should help" plus a link to a relevant source.
Also, the fact that I cited this law doesn't mean I'm giving an opinion as to whether HN should have a policy about legal advice. I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion by interjecting some relevant facts.
As to my personal opinion, I lean slightly against an HN prohibition on the giving or soliciting legal advice. While the state may have something to say about it, I generally think it's not PG's responsibility to protect people from bad advice--which is the whole purpose of the law in the first place.
Go away and let this issue lie.
Ironic that in your 'run to mommy' thread you try to invoke pg as some authority for you. (ironically his comment was trying to stop a futile argument in the bud, as you could easily have seen the other killed comment that wasn't mine while you were stalking me)?
And after you accuse me of following you, you say you've been "observing me for months" and concluded I'm a troll. You're a creep. What is your problem?
I didn't skim your comment history, I read the God damned thread yesterday. I should have known you'd show up and want a spoonful of this delicious troll soup, hours after the fact, while saying absolutely nothing of contributing value that other people haven't said already.
The complete irony of this is that the abuse I'm getting for "running to mommy" (I'm sure Paul Graham would really appreciate your minimization) is not what I expected for trying to help people not get in legal trouble, and that you can't see that just means: you are a troll.
I would hope that pg is intelligent enough to understand that my characterization of this post isn't meant to minimize him in the least. Someone repeating the same thing over and over and flatly ignoring the same requests for an actual explanation or elaboration is bad enough. When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me.
Can you edit that comment any more? I liked the fuller, more stupid one better wherein you claim I'm mad at you for something you said in a Bitcoin thread, like I'm a high school sophomore or something that holds a grudge. No, you're just ignorant, and I've noticed because I pay attention.
Oh look, a completely new paragraph kissing pg's ass! Rewrite your comment again, this is fun to watch.
> When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me.
Pause. Time out.
Now you're just being intentionally disingenuous, like many that have come before you. I did not come here to ask pg to ban him. I came here to ask for a guideline to be added advising against giving and receiving legal advice on Hacker News, as if you are not careful it can be disastrous. Without the guideline, it's just jackass me in a thread going "hey, that's a bad idea, don't do that," but people in general seem to pay attention to guidelines.
Since you've been around the block of Hacker News a few times, you and I both know what a guideline is. Stop acting like I'm doing something I'm not.
You can think what you like of me, normally I'd say I'm sorry that I've left this impression on you. I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either.
edit: I meant a "ban" on the practice of giving legal advice, I didn't mean to imply on the person. You're right "ban" is the wrong word anyway.
Dude, you're even more interested in calling yourself names than just participating in the actual conversation. I'm sorry that I've failed to express myself well here but I'm losing patience with trying to have discourse.
Oh, my God! You're right! It's almost like I'm reacting to the tone of conversation that you set by calling me names, or something else equally logical!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813
> A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate.
And, half a dozen people have gotten replies explaining that I am not legally permitted -- as in, I'll be held in contempt and go to jail if I do -- to elaborate on the firsthand knowledge I have regarding a similar situation. I've seen it happen personally, I advise against it as a result, I'm sorry, I can't elaborate further. The end. The irony here is that I went after tptacek for this a few days ago and now I'm in a similar situation myself.
I know what I'm talking about. I can't provide evidence to you, and I don't care if you believe me or not, but I will still share my opinion that it's legally questionable territory.
> I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either.
The several people and lawyer who agreed with my position make perfectly valid explanations that I did not think of, and not a single soul replied to them, but everybody's happy to pile on jsprinkles because his tone isn't perfect. Don't come back high and mighty about discourse when you started this conversation with three annoying, smarmy comments. Go fuck a rake.
Please, I'm begging you, bring back the Bitcoin remark so I can laugh at it again. And, keep deleting the comments that I'm referring to to undermine my position. Don't worry. I remember.
With regard for the reason for this "Ask PG" IANAL but I have plenty to say about this by virtue of the fact that I own domains and have successfully fended off Fedx and American Express as well as several other smaller companies. In some of those cases I've used an attorney and in other cases I have not. What I think about this does count even though I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers also keep in mind know the law but they don't think strategy many times which is also important.
As far as "liability" I think you are taking this to seriously. Do you really think someone is going to bring a cause of action against someone writing something on hacker news with the appropriate disclaimer (or not)? Why not a cause of action if someone gives bad advice on a backup solution? That's going to hold up in court? While anything can happen I think this is extremely remote. A comment on HN is not like writing a blog and pretending to be a lawyer.
Above opinion by the way is based on my 30 years in business avoiding all sorts of legal issues along the way.
Since I didn't give any legal advice[1], but you constantly insisted I did, what you're really lobbying for is the power to shut people up who talk about laws.
[1] Other than "get a lawyer". The topic of the post was how doing research might get lawyers interested because he'd been turned down so far.
edit: But I think OP is also concerned about the liability created for ones giving the advice, not just welfare of the ones receiving it. A guideline would help keep these advice givers out of trouble
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E0D7153AF...
"But later in life, Mr. Salinger proved far less adroit in dealing with the new medium of the Internet, publicizing what turned out to be a bogus document that Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had been shot down off Long Island in 1996 by a Navy missile gone awry. The episode badly damaged his credibility and bewildered some of his oldest friends."
I don't think people are cognizant of the ramifications of wearing denim suits, but I think it's ok that they do it. Seriously, (most) everyone here is an adult, and fully capable of making these decisions for themselves. It's up to you how you choose to participate, whether in this context or any other.