Re: The legal questions

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Gregg Housh <greggatghc@gmail.com> wrote:

I completely agree with you. I think walking that line is the key. We dont have to explicitly say it all over the proposal and book, we just need to make sure we dont say something like GREGG DDOSED THIS WEBSITE BY HIMSELF! I know we wont, but you get the idea.

Luckily we have one thing going for us, I havent actually taken part in the illegal activities. The fact that that is true is going to be helpful I am sure.

Once we have a final proposal I think showing it to the lawyer is a great idea, he is ready when we are.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com> wrote:
Gregg--

One thing we do need to ponder here is what you raised in this note last night: "And while I have not taken part in any of the illegal activities, many of the early accusations are entirely true" The goal with this edit is to make sure we dont implicate me in the illegal activities even slightly. Thoughts?

Of course we don't want to implicate you in anything. On the other hand, this line sounds kinda like b.s., and undermines your credibility as a narrator. [Though: Barrett, I guess what he means in this SPECIFIC example is that "the early accusations" apply to the stuff he was pursued for, and ultimately went to jail for--that is, making a clear distinction between that stuff and anything involved with Anonymous. How to draw that line without sounding tight-assed?]

Gregg: we know, or presume, that you were involved in *some* capacity. (By "we" I mean the reader.) In fact, that's partly why we buy this book in the first place, for its offer of authenticity, for the way it puts us in proximity to the center of the action. We don't need to know the EXTENT of your involvement, but the fact that you're even telling the story at all implicates you to some extent. Not legally--legally, the argument we make is that what you say & know is second hand, in a legal sense ("and so inadmissible in court," as they say on the legal dramas)--but if it feels truly second-hand *to the reader,* if it's peppered with too many cover-your-ass denials, then they won't trust you, won't believe you, and will reject the book. The deniability we should aspire to, it seems to me, is that you are relaying the knowledge you've accumulated of Anonymous activity in your role as accidental spokesperson... but there needs to be a little wink-wink to that (and this is a matter of voice, of attitude--right, Barrett?)... So to actually insert that default legal-protection language--"while I have not taken part in any of the illegal activities..."--in the flow of the narrative itself undermines the story in a variety of ways.

I think you need to share this email with your lawyer, and ultimately--not yet, but once the proposal itself is revised--have him give it a read toward this end. There are, of course, all sorts of legal issues to concern ourselves with here--the publisher will have its own legal counsel review the book vociferously in that regard, pre-publication, so I'm less worried about the end-product than I am THIS product, the proposal, for which we WON'T have the publisher's participation/ expertise.

It seems to me--here again I'd like your lawyer's advice--that we need to insert, perhaps at the END of this proposal--a formal, cover-all-the-bases legal disclaimer.

But the trick here--Barrett, your thoughts?--is that the proposal & book nonetheless must have some edge to it, particularly in terms of VOICE. And the implication of that edgy voice is to suggest, or have the reader infer: HEY, SO HERE'S THE DRILL. MY LAWYERS WANT ME TO COVER MY ASS, RIGHT? SO I'VE GOT THIS LEGAL DISCLAIMER... BUT BETWEEN US, BETWEEN YOU (READER) AND ME? WE BOTH KNOW THERE'S SOME WINK-WINK GOING ON, RIGHT? Not explicitly, but implied...

And that's why I like the way Barrett, here and there in the several drafts, has played with the notion that ALMOST everything here is true, and that we're telling you ALMOST everything, except in some cases where we CANNOT without, y'know, implicating ourselves:

"On every other point there is disagreement, some of which is understandable, some of which is silly, and some of which is the result of intentional yet largely uncoordinated efforts to obscure the movements nature. Some of the truth is known to most anyone who looks for it; some is obscured and known only to those who were present, physically or otherwise, at certain times and places; some is known to a certain few whose knowledge derives from having themselves put things into motion on different occasions. This book will draw upon all three sources, leaving unknown only those things that will never be known by virtue of that fact that such knowledge would lead to legal action of both the criminal and civil sort and even violence. And a bit of that will make its way in, too, probably by accident."

This section (above) from the very first draft--I don't think it's still in the proposal anymore, but I always loved the way it was, at once, direct AND veiled, admitted that a degree of obfuscation HAD to be in the mix here. That obfuscation was an inevitable part of the mix--if we're going to tell the "truth" of this story, some of the SPECIFIC truths would have to be obscured. Here's what you wrote:

Is it possible to walk this line, Barrett? To have a kind of playful 'edge' and attitude but still maintain the level of 'cover' Gregg requires? Gregg, how do YOU feel about that, assuming we can find the right balance?

________________________________
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
________________________________
From: Gregg Housh [greggatghc@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:59 PM
To: Barrett Brown; Daniel Conaway
Subject: Finally.

Ok, here are my notes on the two files I have: "Anonymous Concepts etc djc notes.doc" and "Anonymous Proposal July 26.doc"

Gregg