Well if they set up that silly forum as a trap it was poorly set. If they wanted to collect postings as the basis for a legal fight, they can simply come here and read some of the really stupid and over the top vague threats that have been posted to these forums, or even to the yahoo forum.
No, I have serious doubts of this theory, but I think it is wholly valid and healthy to express such concerns.
Rather, I suspect that the forum was set up as a part of their web site redesign of late, and that they were hoping to create a space where people could insult, intimidate, or otherwise humilate anyone who dares to suggest that we reconsider our so called war on drugs.
But the point is, as I posted on my blog, that they set up the rules for their forum, and they had the chance to set any rules they wanted- they labled the forum as a open forum for all views, and the only rule they established was no profanity. Indeed that is the only rule at this moment that has been posted.
Now, there were no postings that I saw with any profanity, a term that is pretty well defined. However, there was at least one post that I would say could be construed as offensive or vulgar- though it again contained no words that are widely defined as profane.
Frankly if you poke around their web site, they have no terms of use for the site at all, only a copyright symbol at the bottom of each page, which does not link to any sort of definition of their copyright terms.
In general that is legally defined as a statement that none of their original content may be reproduced for profit, and that fair use limitations mean that other journalists, or publishers may excerpt parts of their content for the purposes of illustration and citation within their own publishing.
Anyone can set up a forum, anyone can set the terms of use for their forum, and anyone can choose to allow their forum to be accessible to either the public, or only to pre-approved registered users. If you choose to make it a public forum, you always run the risk that someone who disagrees with you will post to it- and you always have the authority to remove any commentary that you find offensive, threatening or illegal. However, you run the risk of discrediting yourself by selectively editing a forum, and if your are funded by tax dollars, you run the risk of losing that funding or being accused of using tax dollars for censorship of free speech.
Also, as a 501 c 3 tax exempt organization, they have made themselves a public entity, partially funded by that status, as well as their decision to accept federal grants - as I understand it- all of this means that they have agreed to make their 'business' a public issue, and as such generally are expected by the courts to be prepared to accept criticism, even to the point of offensive or vulgar criticism, from the public.
For instance, if you so chose, and took the time to do so, you could set up a parody of their site, using dfaf.net or some other available domain, you could create a parody graphic of their graphic, make the site relatively similar to theirs, and lampoon the commentary and original content of their site- as parody as been widely protected as a form of free speech by the courts- so long as you clearly lable it as parody. They could choose to sue you, but they would have to prove in court that your site did actual harm, or damage to their ability to carry on their business.
For instance, I am critical of the DFAF on my blog, I have been critical of Mel Sembler and Betty Sembler as well as the entire program Straight Inc. Now they could choose to drag me into court, forcing me to get a lawyer and defend myself in a libel or slander suit. However in such suits the burden of evidence is on the accuser to prove that the commentary in question is either false, or is false AND has caused actual damage to their ability to build shopping centers in his case, or in her case to carry out the policies ofthe DFAF or her other prohibitionists campaigns.
Since my site gets very very few visitors, and even then msot of them only stay for a very short period of time, it wiuld be difficult if not impossible to suggest that my opinion or commentary could have caused any real damage to their ability to carry on their business ventures, orto maintain their reputation in public life. Additionally, since what I have said is TRUE, that is that we were exposed to a coercive and dangerous and damaging thought-reform environment as evidenced by a wide variety of published articles- how would they prove that my opinions are falsehoods?
Generally the courts expect such groups and entities to take all pssible steps prior to that, such a request for change of content, or corrections, or even for a chance to rebute the commentary etc. The courts do not look kindly on frivilous or what is known as 'vexatious' litigation or the threat thereof, and indeed if one chooses to threaten legal action and then fails to carry through with it, one can easily be brought up on charges of barratry- making a false threat of litigation.
In the case of Radley Balko, his formerly upcoming article was going to be published in Reason, a widely read magazine that could in fact cause them difficulties, and so they made a threat of legal action. Unfortunately, Radley choose to allow that threat to intimidate him, despite his confidence in his own reporting. Had he published his article, I have serious dobuts about whether they would have actually sued. Intimidation is much cheaper than actual litigation.
However other articles are widely available on the net fro ma variety of sources that are highly critical of the Semblers and their activities, notthe least of which is Wes Fager's site at the straights.com.
By choosing to become public figures, they are expected by the courts to be ready to accept public and often offensive criticism, and the courts are rarely willing to find inthe favor of such figures when they challenge the publics right to express opinion and political free speech.
But in the end this does not constitute a broad license to call them names, orthe threatent them, or to publish blatant falsehoods. In general though, one is fairly safe expressing opinion regarding political and public figures- after all there are plenty of far more agressive and offensive sites out there about public figures than anything I have seen published about the Semblers. In the end they are unlikely to want to see court documentation of their dirty laundry.
Of course everyting I am sayign here is purely my own opinion, and should in know way be construed as incitement to act, or in any way be interpreted as legal advice- I am not a lawyer or even a college dgreeed person. I am just a citizen, exercising my 1st ammendment right to specualte and opine on the actions of public figures adn their organizations that are tax exempted and therefore supported by taxpayers.
COnsider this- can you be sued by a church for saying the God does not exist?
