Regarding the removal of the "Foreclosure Rage" post: Reno Realty Blog is currently in the process determining the extent of the blog’s liability when it comes to contributions and comments made on the blog. While we truly value the contributions made by our readers, we also need to consider the exposure to us related to some of the comments made on the blog. For example when comments are posted concerning the character and reputation of specifically named persons or companies, what kind of liability does the blog have if these statements are found to be false?
After we clarify this question we will post a policy stating the blog’s position.
We absolutely detest having to censor the blog, as it inhibits the free-flow of conversation that makes this forum so valuable. We simply need to evaluate the blog’s exposure and define its role in our community.
Diane & Guy
Marla
Why did you need to take the whole thread down? There was a lot of very good commentary there. Some very useful info. And now it’s gone poof.
The reason this blog gets the attention it does is because it doesn’t spew the standard realtor bullsh… about how it’s never a bad time to buy, and the bottom is at hand and buy now or forever regret it.
This is what, the thrid time in about six weeks a thread has just been vaporized after some very stimulating conversation. Why? Because somebody’s feelings got hurt? I understand the fear, and that’s what it is, of lawsuits. Understood. And it’s your blog and you can do with it whatever you want, but if you are going to turn this blog into the usual realtor happy talk, you can kiss it goodbye.
walter
I observe that there are one or two comments under the Montage thread that might be considered, if one interprets them in a particular way, to be somewhat critical of Mr. Leal and his company.
Are you going to take that thread down also?
BanteringBear
Hmmmm. Some guy apparently trashes his place prior to foreclosure, the listing agent discloses this in the comments section, we all opine about the ramifications of such acts, and then the whole piece is confiscated, just to be safe. Paranoia comes to mind…
Josh
I look forward to hearing about the meeting with the lawyer, and reading the policy. Some moderation is a good thing. Perhaps in the meantime the names can be xxx’d out for liability protection until said meeting and the the thread restored? I think many of us have learned on this very blog how to look up such info using publicly available information. I know I looked up that realtors information and found out his or her (don’t want to get sued with Guy and Diane) name.
Martin
There seems to be something going on here. Over the past several weeks, this blog has somewhat turned into Mike’s blog. Just go back and look at who has put up what threads over the past weeks. JoAnn (with all due respect) is a non-entity on this blog. Diane and Guy have continued to put up their “here are the numbers” threads about market activity, but neither of them have posted anything provocative in a long time (again with all due respect to Diane and Guy).
It was Mike who put up the thread about Mr. Capurro’s foreclosure, which was subsequently vaporized. It was Mike who put up the thread about the trashed realtor’s house that got vaporized today. It was Mike who put up the fine threads about the foreclosure club, the Cal-Neva Lodge, the Montage, and other REO properties. Mike is a data miner extraordinaire.
Now maybe Diane and Guy are too busy out there hustling real estate. Fair enough. Maybe Diane and Guy don’t want the heat from Mr. Capurro and Juan the realtor, people they have to work with. Again, fair enough.
But self-censorship is still censorship. I, too, would hate to see this blog turn into realtor happy talk. I can go to Chase Nation for that.
Maybe Mike needs to save the provocative stuff for his own blog? I don’t know.
Perry
Perhaps this site can move more towards the style of http://www.socketsite.com from San Francisco. Take the affiliation away from Diane and Guy. Maybe they can post under a ghost name? Diane and Guy, I’m not trying to get your site hijacked just hoping to keep the good info coming on this site.
I think the people that post here have been and are rather insightful into the Reno market which is why I keep reading. If some of the developers around here would listen to some of the reason on this blog a lot of money could have been saved.
.PollyParrott
I am a long time reader first time poster. I have been reading this blog since the middle of 2006. I agree wholeheartedly with Perry. I was getting ready to buy in 2006, and then I found this blog. I listened to Reno Ignoramus and Bantering Bear and others back in 2006 and I am thankful. Yes, I have been renting since that time, but I am not 25% upside down and buried in a mortgage like I would have been if I had bought. Please make every effort to save the freeflow exchange on this blog. Yes, Bear can be a bit harsh at times, but I don’t imagine I’m the only one out here that has been saved financially by this blog. I would say this blog has almost been a true public service. I’m sure some realtor people have been unhappy about this blog and the commissions they didn’t make because of it though.
smarten
Guy asserts recent post deletions have taken place because of the “blog’s [potential] liability when it comes to contributions and comments made on the blog,” presumably by we third persons. Although I encourage Guy and Diane to secure legal clarification, let me direct everyone to Barret v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33 [ http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/40/33.html ]. This case [although a California Supreme Court case, it interprets the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 {47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)}] examines an interactive computer service provider’s or user’s liability as if it were the publisher or speaker for any information provided by another information content provider [i.e., we bloggers]. Simply stated, the operators of this site [as well as we users] are exempt from liability.
IMO there was little in this thread that rose to the level of defamation [the only thing I can think of which raised a question in my mind is whether the assertion that a neighbor observed Juan loading pavers from the subject house into a CBIV truck was maliciously false.
There is nothing defamatory [nor private] in reporting public information. So if Wayne, Juan or anyone else for that matter is in foreclosure and the record suggests the pot calling the kettle black, that’s NOT defamation. I actually thought it was quite appropriate for Wayne to volunteer his side of the story. I did not think it was appropriate to pull the thread.
I’m sorry this thread was pulled because I think it was heading in a very, very interesting direction. BTW, don’t know if BB was able to read my “love fest” response to his last comments [I admire your New Year’s Resolution] – hope so!
Let’s get back to RESPECTFUL blogging without fear [or censorship].
Diane Cohn
Martin, you’re right. Mike is the one contributing the good stuff lately. Lucky for us, public records are his personal obsession, and that’s the area where the really juicy stuff is unfolding these days.
Perry, thanks for the suggestion of moving more toward the SocketSite model… it’s definitely something to ponder in light of recent events.
All, we seriously hated pulling the last thread, though we did save it. Perhaps Mike would be willing to post a cleaned-up version that doesn’t hang another realtor on the cross to burn in hell… the rest was fascinating.
Guy and I are in a bit of a catch-22, here. We are realtors bound by a code of ethics that prohibit us from speaking ill of other realtors. We have to belong to this group to do business in this town… in other words, we can’t NOT belong to NAR. We have to for access to our local MLS. We can’t have these people upset with us, and the last thing I need is a bunch of angry good old boys coming after me and my family. So yeah, there’s fear.
If people could just post their thoughts without the angry mob mentality of calling out the possibly guilty, naming names (I mean geez, just use nicknames) I would not feel this horrific need to censor. It’s sickening.
Diane Cohn
Polly, thanks for joining the conversation. I am glad to hear that this blog has saved you so much money. I’m sure you’re not alone. This blog has always sought the truth about the marketplace so that people could make better decisions… which is why the censorship quandry is so vexing.
inclinejj
They pulled the threads due to the fact it would have been a major pia being in court for the next 2 years trying to explain a post on a blog..
RoyalFlush
“We are realtors bound by a code of ethics that prohibit us from speaking ill of other realtors”
Come on Diane, really? I think you and your group are the only realtors with ethics, look around. Is it not your professional obligation to maintain and nurture the last threads of respect your industry has left? You should be shaking the industry up, not turning the other way. Legal action is simply an excuse.
The emporer has no clothes…why say otherwise?
Sully
Diane, although your comment for removing the post makes sense, I think there might be other influences dictating the removal. At the Chase Nation site, if your post doesn’t conform exactly to the authors way of thinking it gets unposted and rather quickly I might add. So, it becomes nothing more than a message board for local realtors. Very little information regarding the local market gets any attention, except for the “its a great time to buy” mentality.
As far as speaking ill of other realtors, both you and Guy did not post in that thread. All details were public information, or could easily be found.
BanteringBear
So what you are saying, Diane, is everything we bloggers post, needs to conform to this supposed realtor code of ethics (pardon me while I throw up)? If that’s the case, then this site will be no different than any other realtor shill site, and my interest level should drop to zero fairly quickly. What a shame, if that’s what things are coming to.
CommercialLender
This is their blog, to which we all contribute. I get it.
But a cornered rat will strike out. Right or wrong, a person specifically called out, especially if in foreclosure or about to lose his/her livelyhood, career, or home, etc. will sue. They have nothing to lose at that point and likely everything to gain.
Problem is Diane, Mike and Guy all have to pony up big legal dollars to defend themselves, so even if they are found to be perfectly innocent at a trial, they just shelled out, what, $50K-200K in the process? Anyone on this blog want to write a check in their defense?
Finally, I personally have a blanket liability insurance policy, as I’m sure most on this blog do, and for a decent amount to cover my backside. Funny thing is, it specifically excludes libel and slander. I could run down a pedestrian in a cross walk while drunk and they’ll defend me up to my limit, but I can’t libel or slander or I’m on my own …
So, I say give them a chance to figure out their liability and I’m sure the blog will return to being a terrific tool again.
NewInTown
Yeah I agree if you are the blog moderator you have censorship rights. If you want to go out and start your own blog go right ahead. However, just because noone witnesses an act of libel or slander doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I mean I guess what the web is teaching us is that the only reason you have to watch your words is because you can prove it. Seems kind of lame if you ask me. So one on one someone can pretty much say whatever they want, but on a web site we have to censor so-called comment as if it never happened. Hmm.
Diane Cohn
BB, um, yeah… I’m right there with you, puking away.
All, Mike tells me he’s reposted on his own site, which I can’t find the link for, so if you’ve got it please share here.
Guy Johnson
Just in case anyone is wondering about NAR’s Code of Ethics to which Diane referred above, you can read them here. The specific Standard of Practice that pertains to Diane’s point is Article 15, Section 2. It reads:
Standard of Practice 15-2
The obligation to refrain from making false or misleading statements about competitors’ businesses and competitors’ business practices includes the duty to not knowingly or recklessly repeat, retransmit, or republish false or misleading statements made by others. This duty applies whether false or misleading statements are repeated in person, in writing, by technological means (e.g., the Internet), or by any other means. (Adopted 1/07)
smarten
Sorry guys, I disagree that there’s liability for maintaining this blog where OTHERS arguably make defamatory statements, and OTHERS STILL comment upon them. This stuff is all public record and if you REALLY want to start digging up garbage on ANYONE, take a look at court files – especially in family court [it’s all public record]! Again, NOT private nor privileged from communication [or commentary].
Although Guy and Diane maybe have subscribed to the NAR’s code of ethics, few of the rest of us had. So I can’t see where they’re guilty of unethical conduct because they maintain a blog and others speak ill of their fellow licensed home boys [or girls]. In fact, what’s the [ill] message you’re sending when you advertise a short sale on the MLS and the seller is an agent? Furthermore, with Wayne and Juan we were talking about their personal rather than business affairs. Standard of Practice 15-2 speaks of a competitor’s BUSINESS and his/her BUSINESS PRACTICES.
Now we just had a comment [on another thread] from Tom who stated no one’s going to pay an attorney to pursue assigned HELOC damage claims where one ends up with a piece of paper judgment. Yet all of a sudden all of you are concerned about a deadbeat suing for defamation? I don’t think so.
But if you’re still concerned CommercialLender, take out a personal umbrella policy. If I’m not mistaken, most provide coverage for libel and slander.
And before any of you get in a huff over the mere allegation of defamation, remember, truth is a defense and commentary [i.e., free speech] is not actionable.
MikeZ
Some guy apparently trashes his place prior to foreclosure …
Trashed HIS place…? Excuse me, how do YOU know THE OWNER caused the damage?
That’s an unfounded, unsubstantiated accusation. I don’t know why you insist on crossing over that line … YET AGAIN.
MikeZ
There is nothing defamatory [nor private] in reporting public information.
When you start accusing SPECIFIC people of criminal acts, like intentionally damaging their own home, that’s libel, even in Nevada.
Unless someone here KNOWS that the OWNER caused the damage … ?
BanteringBear
MikeZ posted:
“Some guy apparently trashes his place prior to foreclosure …
Trashed HIS place…? Excuse me, how do YOU know THE OWNER caused the damage?
That’s an unfounded, unsubstantiated accusation. I don’t know why you insist on crossing over that line … YET AGAIN.”
What’s your problem, MikeZ? It’s in the comment section of the listing for crying out loud. And, I think that YOUR post insinuating that there may be something “libelous” floating in the post and comments is what made Diane nervous. Are you the authority on libel or something? Quite frankly, I don’t think you know what the hell you’re talking about.
BanteringBear
From the listing:
“Property was stripped to the sheet rock by the previous owner.”
It is NOT libel for me to state that “some guy APPARENTLY trashes his place prior to foreclosure” after reading this. You are WRONG, MikeZ. Quit trying to stir up a lawsuit.
smarten
I guess the listing agent is guilty of libel when he states the property was stripped BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. After all, was he there to see the trashing with his own eyes? Does anyone know if the trasher was the owner, or someone else?
So here an agent disparages a fellow agent; that’s O.K. for NAR ethical purposes; someone on this blog quotes the listing [which is now in the public domain]; and somehow Diane and Guy are guilty of violating NAR ethics? I don’t think so.
Paul
Diane, code of conduct 15-2 prohibits the dissemination of FALSE or MISLEADING information about the “business practices” of another Realtor. Assuming stripping a property you own of its contents prior to foreclosure constitutes a “business Practice”, if the allegation were in fact TRUE, it would not be covered under 15-2. Moreover, the allegation in this case is being made by the listing agent for the bank. You, and we, are simply discussing it in a public forum.
Another angle, perhaps Smarten could weigh in on this one: Nevada has am anti-SLAPP statute. Basically, an individual or organization who files a frivolous or “strategic lawsuit against public participation” aimed at silencing public discussion of a public policy matter (bank regulation, effects of ineffective regulation) may be liable for damages and attorney fees for the person that was sued.
smarten
Well Paul, I will weigh in on anti-SLAPP; thanks for bringing up the subject. Quite frankly, I didn’t realize Nevada had such a statute. California has had it for a good period of time, and it has engendered quite a bit of litigation.
As Paul points out, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It is enacted to protect persons who exercise protected [or constitutional] rights [like freedom of expression or the right to petition government for grievances] from retaliatory lawsuits intended to chill the exercise of those rights. In the context of the discussion we’re having here on this blog, it would come into play if someone tried to scare another into NOT exercising his/her freedom of speech through the filing of a lawsuit [in this case, arguably for defamation].
So as an example, let’s say Wayne or Juan sued Diane and Guy for maintaining this blog and creating a forum for we bloggers to publish and republish arguably defamatory statements. Given Diane and Guy are immune from this type of liability under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [and more particularly, we bloggers are protected under freedom of speech], all of us could seek the protection of anti-SLAPP.
Although we would have to jump through a series of procedural hoops which basically gave Wayne or Juan a short period of time in which to dismiss their lawsuit[s], if they didn’t and we ultimately prevailed in the litigation because our actions were protected, Wayne or Juan would [NOT could] be liable for our attorney’s fees and litigation costs even if there is no statute which specifically allows the prevailing party in such litigation to recover his/her attorney’s fees and/or costs.
The existence of this “tool” allows those protected who are named as defendants in litigation to threaten the use of anti-SLAPP [by no more than a letter] if the plaintiff doesn’t dismiss his/her lawsuit [a relatively inexpensive means of seeking relief].
In California [and I suspect Nevada], this has become a very, very effective tool in curbing what some would characterize as legal bullying tactics. So if anyone’s reading this thread who is thinking about suing Diane, Guy, JoAnn, Mike or even BB for their activities on this blog, let that reader beware.
Now before any of you go charging off an a tangent, what I find even more interesting is the use of anti-SLAPP to curb another’s use of anti-SLAPP [because the filing of a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion can itself subject the movant to the same type of anti-SLAPP liability]. Think about that one for a moment and ponder the chill it can have on the bully who asserts he/she is being bullied!
Diane Cohn
Smarten, thanks for the analysis. I feel better. Guy and I were thinking about putting a tip jar on the blog so that anyone who wants to can donate to the RRB Legal Defense Fund. What do you think? 😉
MikeZ
News flash: repeating libel is also libelous.
NRS 200.510.
NRS 200.520.
NRS 200.530.
It’s beyond me why you two, Bear and smarten, continue to push this matter.
Who caused the damage is entirely irrelevant.
inclinejj
You know what guys..Diane and Guy started this blog to educate people about the market..
They can shut it down just as fast..
If you guys want to start a pissing contest do it off the blog
Thanks
Jim
Move to Reno
The courts should give blogs such as this more leeway than traditional “print media” because the person whom the discussion is “about” has the choice to refute any comments made about him or her.
As for Diane and Guy’s decision to delete the thread, definitely the best thing to do given the options available.