4 ms·

If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other communication

by motters 12y ago

If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other communication channels. Refuse to go quietly into the night.

peterwwillis 12y ago
> If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible 1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty. 2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition. 3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse. 4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack. 5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say. 6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you. 7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say. The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.
zavulon 12y ago
Did you read the article? The point is you're making it worse by tweeting and making other public statements. You may win in court of public opinion, but you're making it easier for your opponent to beat you in actual court.
- nailer 12y ago
  I can see both sides to the argument. Someone who was subsequently cleared of charges but whose name is still mud probably has a different value on the court of public opinion.
- personZ 12y ago
  The blog post is pure speculation by what appears to be a layman. It has no more weight than any random comment on HN. It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving, like, an opinion, man.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Let's see a famed IP lawyer that would disagree with the premise of the article. Attack the contents, if you can. There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't see anybody contradicting the advice.
    - personZ 12y ago
      Unnecessarily defensive. Was there something, anything, in my comment that is incorrect? Are you actually a contract/IP lawyer? Note that I'm not saying that you are wrong, because honestly I don't know. Because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the specifics of this case. But am I wrong in what I said about the authority of the post? This is why people preface things with IANAL. People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases -- regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Don't shoot yourself in the foot is good advice, even when it doesn't come from your surgeon.
stevetursi 12y ago
I agree with the spirit of this but there's also "Do I want to be right or do I want to win?" It's great to rally the public to your cause but if it reduces your odds of winning the case, it's probably not worth it.
chiph 12y ago
By making public statements, you're talking straight to the prosecutor/opposing attorney. As the warning says: Anything you say may be used against you in court.
smackfu 12y ago
The point is that if they make a spurious allegation in a lawsuit, your lawyer should defend you as much as possible. That's the whole point of a lawyer.
rayiner 12y ago
If you're sure it's a slam-dunk case that you can prove it's a spurious allegation, then go have your fun. But it's very easy to get emotionally invested in your position and fail to realize that not everyone will see things the same way. Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
Depends who they're defending you against - the court of law or the court of public opinion. As a very highly paid barrister once said to my father "your mistake is that you think because you're right, you're going to win. You won't." In a court of law being right may not be enough.

by motters 12y ago

peterwwillis 12y ago

> If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible 1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty. 2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition. 3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse. 4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack. 5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say. 6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you. 7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say. The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.

zavulon 12y ago

Did you read the article? The point is you're making it worse by tweeting and making other public statements. You may win in court of public opinion, but you're making it easier for your opponent to beat you in actual court.

nailer 12y ago
I can see both sides to the argument. Someone who was subsequently cleared of charges but whose name is still mud probably has a different value on the court of public opinion.
personZ 12y ago
The blog post is pure speculation by what appears to be a layman. It has no more weight than any random comment on HN. It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving, like, an opinion, man.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Let's see a famed IP lawyer that would disagree with the premise of the article. Attack the contents, if you can. There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't see anybody contradicting the advice.
  - personZ 12y ago
    Unnecessarily defensive. Was there something, anything, in my comment that is incorrect? Are you actually a contract/IP lawyer? Note that I'm not saying that you are wrong, because honestly I don't know. Because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the specifics of this case. But am I wrong in what I said about the authority of the post? This is why people preface things with IANAL. People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases -- regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Don't shoot yourself in the foot is good advice, even when it doesn't come from your surgeon.

stevetursi 12y ago

I agree with the spirit of this but there's also "Do I want to be right or do I want to win?" It's great to rally the public to your cause but if it reduces your odds of winning the case, it's probably not worth it.

chiph 12y ago

By making public statements, you're talking straight to the prosecutor/opposing attorney. As the warning says: Anything you say may be used against you in court.

smackfu 12y ago

The point is that if they make a spurious allegation in a lawsuit, your lawyer should defend you as much as possible. That's the whole point of a lawyer.

rayiner 12y ago

If you're sure it's a slam-dunk case that you can prove it's a spurious allegation, then go have your fun. But it's very easy to get emotionally invested in your position and fail to realize that not everyone will see things the same way. Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

Depends who they're defending you against - the court of law or the court of public opinion. As a very highly paid barrister once said to my father "your mistake is that you think because you're right, you're going to win. You won't." In a court of law being right may not be enough.