Just a friendly public service reminder, prompted by a brief conversation I had over the weekend: If you (1) make only a little money by selling ads on your blog (or having a tipjar), and (2) you have homeowner's insurance (or, in some instances, renter's insurance), and (3) you worry about the possible risk of defamation lawsuits, invasion of privacy lawsuits, and the like -- and the expense of defending the lawsuits even if you ultimate prevail -- consider going entirely noncommercial.
As I discussed three years ago, many homeowner's insurance policies cover you for libel, invasion of privacy, and the like, including for the costs of defending the lawsuits. But they generally expressly exempt liability that's based on your "business pursuits," which may include even those pursuits on which you make a pittance.
So check your insurance policy, and if it fits the description I give, check your ad and tip income. If it's, say, only $250/year after taxes, ask yourself: Would I spend $250/year to buy insurance against libel and invasion of privacy liability (and defense costs)? If your answer is yes, then consider giving up any business aspect to your blog, which will give you insurance coverage in exchange.
I am a romance author with wide-ranging interests, and this post is particularly relevant, especially as several romance authors are looking at the idea of hosting ads in order to make a bit of dosh on the side.
I'm just after clarification: I presume that if you're using a web app with 'sponsored links' (such as the social network sites), then as long as you're not making any money from those ads, you're still in the clear (i.e. one's policy would not be voided)...? Would this be correct, or is there some other nefarious insurance clause we should look out for? One can never be too sure when dealing with insurance companies. (Of course, I will be recommending reading the policy in minute detail, in any case.)
have you ever been sued or threatened with suit for a VC post?
I had a guy email me and threaten to report me to the Bar, because I blogged about his case and suggested it came out wrong and that the supreme court was likely to reverse. (Evidently his attorney advised him he had no defamation case against me because I never got a letter from the lawyer.) He claimed it was making it difficult for him to find a job.
I told him to forget it. He sent me a few more emails, and eventually I decided to delete the post. It got almost no traffic anyway. He later sent me a semi-nice email, so it was all good.
Had he sued me, it probably would have been fairly simple to just defend it myself.
Volokh Conspiracy T-Shirt
A Web search didn't turn up anything either.
In addition, I think it would be very easy for a blogger to find pro bono representation. These cases are sexy. Were I a commercial blogger, I'd keep my money and take my chances.
If the blog only generates $250/year, maybe it's not worth the filing fee and paperwork, but the tax benefits could justify it.
http://www.abovethelaw.com/anthony_ciolli/
IANAL, though, so your mileage may vary.
Generally speaking, you'll also find courts to be a lot more favorable toward individuals than to companies; beyond the recognition that commercial speech is less 'worthy' of first amendment protection, there's simply a notable internal bias that can't be ignored.
Gattsuru: You may be right that courts are more sympathetic to individuals, but I should note that both individuals and companies may engage in commercial speech -- an individual professional's promoting his services, for instance, qualifies -- and both may engage in noncommercial speech, such as publishing news reports or opinion articles. "Commercial speech" roughly means "commercial advertising," and turns generally on the content of the speech, not on whether the speaker is an individual or a company.
But to what extent is someone really at risk? How many individuals get sued for their blogs?
Being of the opinion that anything worth doing is worth doing for money, I find this a little disheartening.