This May Change What I’m Willing to Post On My Blog…

I started my blog as a way to memorialize how I deal with my personal finances – a kind of diary, if you will. My primary intent was to keep tabs on my spending, investments, savings and the progress on my debts. I also wanted a place I can store reference materials, such as interesting articles, great tips, etc.

But my blog has also evolved into an outlet where I air my thoughts, experiences and opinions (sometimes relating to PF matters only tangentially). It hasn’t all been pretty -- I’ve posted petty, elitist or mean-spirited rants that I can’t express in real-life to others. After all, what’s the purpose of a diary if you’re going to sugarcoat things?

Although many of my posts are personal in nature, I made the conscious choice to open my blog to the public because: (a) I write anonymously, (b) I don’t expect to have a wide-audience and (c) I enjoy receiving feedback (positive and negative) from my readers.

Consequently, I’ve been able to develop great relationships (albeit virtual) with people I would’ve otherwise never encountered. I’m grateful for all of the comments I’ve received. Even those that are critical have provided thoughtful, relevant, and civil opinions.

But a recent case decided by the California Appellate Court may change how and what I write in my blog in the future. The California Appellate Court recently held that a person who posts an article on the internet (e.g. blog or Myspace) does not have the right to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy when the post is republished. (Click here to read the opinion.)

In this case, a UC Berkeley student wrote a rather mean-spirited “ode” about her hometown and its residents in her Myspace journal. The student only identified herself by her first name and a picture. Six days later, the student removed the “ode” from her online journal. Before she took the “ode” down, the local high school principal submitted it to the local paper. The paper re-published the “ode” and attributed the authorship to the student, using her full name. (Note: Whatever point the editor wanted to make, couldn’t she have done it without identifying the author, especially since the offensive post was deleted? Or was the editor seeking retribution? Hmmm….)



The lunatic fringe of the student's hometown reacted violently by issuing death threats and shooting a gun at her family home. As a result, the student’s parents had to close their 20 year-old family business and move the heck out of Dodge. (Note: I wonder if the editor of the paper is proud of herself? And hasn’t this, ironically, lent credence to what the student wrote about the residents of the community? Hmmmm….)

I’m a firm believer that people need to accept the consequences for their actions and their words. But no one deserves to be threatened, physically or verbally, solely for their opinions, no matter how offensive. If the expressed opinion is libelous or slanderous, people should seek legal recourse.

I know of at least one blogger who shut down his blog after people tried to “out” him. (For what and to what end, I don’t know.) I know of other bloggers who’ve experienced something similar for expressing unpopular opinions about gift-giving etiquette or writing about her actions that some have deemed “morally reprehensible” (i.e., taking advantage of couponing rule loopholes). Seriously.

I guess what this means is that anything I write in this blog will be filtered and self-censored from hereon forward. Although it’s probably too late, I’m considering deleting prior posts that may be too revealing or potentially “offensive”.

But before I do, I just have to let out one dig: To all you nut-jobs who have nothing better to do than to “out” and seek retribution against an author for an “offensive” post, there is a better option -- You can stop reading the “offensive” blog and encourage others to do the same. There’s nothing worse to a blogger than having no audience.

So there. Bleh. [Note to self: Work on my filter…]