Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Doin’ it Wrong on Twitter (updated)

My friend “Gideon” (of A Pub­lic Defender fame) asked an intrigu­ing ques­tion on Twitter:

@tbuhl’s twit­ter pro­file pro­claims “no tweets are pub­lish­able”. What does that mean?

Screen Shot 2013 02 07 at 10 46 42 AM

By “not pub­lish­able,” I sus­pected that “inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist” Teri Buhl (you’ll see the rea­son for the doubt quotes in a moment) meant “not worth pub­lish­ing,” which is ironic and funny because post­ing on Twit­ter is publication.

But no. Buhl responded to Gideon’s inquiry (read from bot­tom to top):

TBuhl0

So not “ironic and funny,” but “ironic and inac­cu­rate.” Because, as any jour­nal­ist knows, post­ing on Twit­ter is pub­li­ca­tion, and “I don’t want my tweets in a story or on a blog” is not the same as “you may not repub­lish what I have published.”

Strike that. Gideon replied, “ok thanks. I don’t know how you pre­vent that, though. I could write a post quot­ing you”:

TBuhl00a

and Buhl showed her true col­ors, threat­en­ing to sue Gideon for doing so:

TBuhl0b

I have had enough peo­ple sue me, grieve me, threaten to sue me, and try to sue me over things I’ve posted here that I have come to see defend­ing such cases as part of my duty to uphold our unalien­able right to free speech.

Teri Buhl, by con­trast, cares so lit­tle for free speech that she, in all seri­ous­ness, threat­ens to sue an anony­mous pub­lic defender if he writes a blog post quot­ing words that she pub­lishes on Twitter.

TBuhl0c

Shame on you, Ms. Buhl. Is “inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist” code for “igno­rant bully”?

Update: 

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 3 11 03 PM

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 5 38 19 PM

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 5 35 14 PM

 

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 5 35 27 PM

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 5 35 38 PM

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 5 36 28 PM

Clearly Ms. Buhl thinks that she’s enti­tled to answers that are none of her busi­ness, and can’t take “we’ve got noth­ing to dis­cuss” for an answer. This, then, is not a shock.

I guess you could see this as “inves­tiga­tive journalism”…if it were dark and you’d had a few beers and you turned your head just right and squinted. 

Here’s the court docket.

Screen Shot 2013 02 03 at 6 38 21 PM

And here’s her lawyer, Frank DiS­cala. I hope he’s advanc­ing a free-speech defense, because clearly the jour­nal of a teenage girl is “pub­lish­able” in a way that pub­lic tweets are not.

[See also this fol­lowup post.]

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

7 Responses to “Doin’ it Wrong on Twitter (updated)”

  1. Michael Simpson says:

    Here was my tweet to gideon:

    ttlms ?@ttlms

    @gideonstrumpet Let me know if Teri Bull sues you and you need a defense to a friv­o­lous suit.

  2. Jeremy Gordon says:

    Does that mean that you’ll also get sued for writ­ing a story about her threat­en­ing to sue Gideon?

    • Mark Bennett says:

      That would be funny. Appar­ently Buhl is hang­ing her hat on the patently false claim that the quoted tweets (which she later deleted before lock­ing down her account) were not pub­lished in her account.

  3. Franklin Bynum says:

    You sure did find a win­ner here.

  4. Mark Draughn says:

    So much for rules 1, 3, and 5, huh? I guess you just can’t help your­self. Good luck!

  5. Ken says:

    This really shows teribuhl judgment.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply