taking the fun out of blogging

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

As a lawyer, I understand the need for policies, procedures, practices, etc. when running a business, managing vendors, employees, etc. Of course. Sure. That’s part of work – both my work and the work of my clients. But when I see an article entitled “Blogging Policies and Best Practices for Lawyers and Law Firms” well, gotta say, my eyes start glazing over.

Not that there’s anything particularly bad or wrong about the article. In fact, it offers some good advice on avoiding “ethical minefields”, creating “powerful marketing tools” and ensuring you realize a good return on your “investment”.

Ugh. To be perfectly honest one of the primary reasons I blog is not to realize a return on investment, or to create a powerful marketing tool, but rather just to offer casual observations (or ruminations) on my work or things related to my work. In other words, its a bit of fun, as compared, for example, to writing a formal research paper, journal article, or a 100 page outsourcing contract. For those types of writing, there are many, many rules, requirements and policies to remember and adhere to, amongst other considerations. And relatively speaking, its not quite as much writing that stuff as it is posting what are ostensibly meandering ramblings about the next new thing. Don’t get me wrong, its certainly interesting and challenging work, but its not the type of thing one typically does to relax.

I guess what I’m getting at is along the same lines as the previous post about making blogging part of someone’s job. Its kind of like saying that its part of your job to chat up your friends at work on a regular basis. Its kind of like saying that there should be internal policies governing who you go to lunch with, and what you talk about over lunch. In other words, to me, it seems to take all the fun out of it. It makes it seem like work. It puts you in the mindset that it is work. And, to be perfectly honest, I think it makes it less interesting, because you’re too worried about the time being put into it. Too worried about whether you’re writing for your “target market”. Too worried about “visualizing and addressing your market”. Too worried on making your blog sound “informal and conversational”. Too worried about this, that and the other thing, none of which have much to do with the subject matter of what you’re writing about.

Of course, this is just my take on blogging and what I hope to achieve (or perhaps rather not to achieve) by doing it.

you know its time to stop blogging when…

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Well. From the “this is rather sad, isn’t it” department, The Register reports on how blogging has now become part of official employment duties at some shops:

According to an official release from the group, Ged Doherty, chairman and chief executive of SonyBMG in UK and Ireland, said the company “has made it obligatory for all senior staff at both Columbia Records and RCA Records to start blogging actively”.

So what happens to staff who refuse to toe the corporate line, or perhaps fail to produce the required quantity of blog blather?

We had to find out.

A spokesperson for SonyBMG told us “you won’t be sacked for failing to blog”, but added, rather ominously: “If you don’t blog, it’s going to be frowned upon. Ged has made it clear that staff are expected to blog and participate in the community. He sees it as part of people’s jobs.”

Surprising to say the least. Wasn’t there a time not long ago when one could get fired for blogging? If memory serves the term was “dooced”, after the blog of the same name. Rather ironic to now hear this.

Dunno – seems rather to take a bit of the fun and spontaneity out of it if its actually part of the job. And isn’t that what makes blogs interesting in the first place? I can’t imagine things being very spontaneous if someone is “frowning upon” you for not blogging, particularly when the person doing the frowning happens to be your boss.

student rant = protected speech?

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Alas, my dabbling with blogging took a bit of a nosedive lately. As things get busy with the day job something has to give, and as between playing a little bit with the boy and writing another entry in the blog, the boy always wins.

Anyway, to kick off a backlog of a zillion entries, E-Commerce News reports on a finding by the Indiana Court of Appeals:

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a student’s obscenity-filled MySpace post blasting a school principal is protected free speech. The student, who is identified as “A.B.” in court documents, was originally placed on probation by a lower court judge in Indiana after she commented about her body piercings and school policy on a MySpace page created by another student.

“While we have little regard for A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech,” the Indiana Court of Appeals notes in its opinion on the case.

The key finding in this particular case is that A.B. was speaking out against her principal and his policies rather than causing actual harm.

This is rather interesting given that there have been one or two cases in Canada where students have been suspended for commenting negatively on their teachers. From what I recall, the stories characterized the activities or comments as “cyber-bullying”. In fact I believe The Toronto Star reported riot policing intervening at a protest by students over the suspension of one student for just this type of activity.

It will be interesting to see whether cases like this one will work their way up to Canada, and whether students, given the somewhat less litigious environment in Canada, will proceed with legal challenges of a similar nature.

can’t do it in new jersey

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

V. quick one (things r busy) from The Reg (gotta love those Brits) – story on how…

Authorities in New Jersey are considering making it an offence to send text messages while driving.

Interesting timing given my prior little rant.  Quoth an Assemblyman from the state:

“It requires you to completely take your eyes off the road. I see people driving down the street using both their thumbs to send a text message, and I can only imagine they are steering with their knees.”

Ah, so that’s how they do it – I was wondering whether it was the elbows or the knees. My only thought – its not an offence already? I wonder whether it is here (Canada)…

multitasking

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

This one isn’t quite law related or quite technology rated, though it sort of touches on both. Just wanted to share something quite remarkable I saw this evening.

I was riding home in a cab with my wife and young son, going down Bay St. at about 8 pm this evening. While stopped at the lights, I casually noticed a gentleman, sitting in the car beside us, obviously very preoccupied with something, looking at his Blackberry  with some degree of concentration and furiously typing away with his thumbs It was quite easy to see given the backlight of his BB was very bright.

After a few seconds the light changed, he sped onwards, and so did we. And he continued to type, with some degree of vigour, apparently fully preoccupied with his urgent e-mail.

So, you ask, what is so remarkable about this, you ask? Surely this isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone tapping away on a BB in a cab, right? And the answer to that would be no. Definitely see it all the time. In fact, do it myself sometime. Great time saver.

So what’s the big deal? He was the one driving! Certainly understand perhaps taking a quick peek at your BB when stopped at the lights. But amazingly, this fellow that I saw simply continued to tap away busily while pressing the accelerator and speeding away. Neither of his hands were on the wheel, and it was quite clear to me that his vision was focused on his BB and not the road (though admittedly he did see the light turn green). I couldn’t tell if he perhaps was guiding the wheel with his elbows.

The stretch of Bay St. we were on is fairly straight, so I imagine someone could just take their hands off the wheel for a stretch and continue relatively unscathed. But do so, and at the same time also try to write an e-mail to someone? What sort of e-mail could possibly be so important to worth risking your life (and the lives of those around you)? Moreover, what kind of person would be so pressed for time that the could not let the e-mail wait a few minutes until they pulled over somewhere to compose it? I can’t imagine that he did a very good job at either.

While nothing much happened this time (he managed to make his left a bit later – too out of range to see what happened to his BB (but obviously with at least one hand off of it) I do wish him the best that karma may have in store for him.

to disclose or not to disclose – that is the question…

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A good writeup on globeandmail.com about the very, very unfortunate case of AiT and Deborah Weinstein, their lawyer. The (very) short version: AiT signs a non-binding letter of intent to get purchased by 3M. Apparently shortly thereafter there’s a leak of the deal (which causes a runup in its share price). AiT issues a press release, saying its exploring alternatives but doesn’t mention the deal. The deal is only disclosed two weeks after the leak, when a definitive agreement is signed (i.e. the deal is binding). Read more about it on the OSC site. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. One of the partners of our firm is quoted on that point:

Gary Girvan, an M&A specialist with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, says “the stakes are very high” for directors to disclose merger negotiations early because civil liabilities legislation introduced by Ontario last year could cost board members personally if they fail to disclose material events in a timely fashion. The combination of the new legislation and the AiT case puts more pressure on boards to reveal potential deals earlier, Mr. Girvan said, but the consequences can be devastating for shareholders.

“The danger is that you end up with a lot of announcements that do not come to fruition and the stocks of the listed company become volatile. Investors will be reacting to news about a deal that hasn’t crystallized,” he said.

The company and its CEO have settled with the Ontario Securities Commission (the provincial equivalent here of the SEC) but Ms Weinstein has indicated she will vigorously defend herself. As, I think, IMHO, she should.

unlimited liability in british columbia!!

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I kind of liked the ring of that – sounds rather tabloidly, with a bit of a legal touch. Obviously not as exciting as Sir Black’s trial but then again, what is?

In any event, if you happen to be a US company looking to do business in Canada or to buy a Canadian business, unlimited liability corporations are very cool because they allow US companies “flow-through” and “check the box” treatment for tax purposes.

Previously, in Canada, it was only Nova Scotia that had them, and they charged rather handsomely for them, since they were the only game in town. However, Alberta has recently enacted similar legislation out there (and word has it that it a bit less expensive) and, as I just heard a bit earlier today, apparently BC will also be doing so shortly.

So, for you US tax mavens out there, the next time you look longingly at Halifax with misty eyes at the thought of tax savings to be had on the shores of Nova Scotia, you would also do well to cast your eyes westward to the rising sun (and lowering fees!) of BC and Alta ULCs.

the internet: how not to learn to commit crimes

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A story in the the Daily Record. The phrase “the thing speaks for itself” (which is one of those handy latin phrases I learned in law school but almost never use, except of course in blog posts – res ipsa loquitur, for you latinphiles out there…) seems to be appropriate for this:

At exactly 5:45:34 on April 18, 2004 a computer taken from the office of the attorney of Melanie McGuire, did a search on the words “How To Commit Murder.”

That same day searches on Google and MSN search engines, were conducted on such topics as `instant poisons,` `undetectable poisons,’ ‘fatal digoxin doses,’ and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Ten days later, according to allegations by the state of New Jersey, McGuire murdered her husband, William T. McGuire, at their Woodbridge apartment, using a gun obtained in Pennsylvania, one day after obtaining a prescription for a sedative known as the “date rape” drug.

As a married man, it also makes me wonder what exactly is it about divorce that is really so bad that people resort to the apparently more preferable alternative of brutally murdering their spouses (as I delicately knock on wood…).

Via Slashdot.