The best recent example we have of how defendants, their attorneys and their public affairs representatives handled the court of public opinion has been the lead paint litigation, both class action public nuisance and personal injury. The strategy seemed to be to stick to the points of law. The website established by Prism Public Affairs to chronicle events in the Rhode island public nuisance trials highlighted the legal issues. And, that, of course, was digital outreach.
Others in the loop for defendants might consider the wisdom of that buttoned-down approach. The availability of the Internet can seduce the well-intentioned directly involved to argue the case in detail to diverse constituencies, indirectly or directly seek support, and/or rant. That could backfire - badly.
First of all, it could annoy the judge. Secondly, it could be perceived as the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Third, it could cross the line into contempt of court or invite sanctions.
That's a lesson which Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson might learn. Nesson is high-profile for his association with the HLS Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Recently, he has gotten into possible trouble for his blogging on "Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan."
In that litigation he represents the defendant Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston University student, in a music download case. The federal judge Nancy Gertner, reports Sheri Qualters in THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, sent Nesson an order "demanding a memo explaining why Tenenbaum or Nesson should not be sanctioned for Nessons' [sic] posting of parts of a deposition on Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society Web site." Nesson rebuts the allegation.
In the perception business, the most credible opining and even the presentation of facts come from third parties, not those directly associated with alleged matter. When attacked by 100 posters on Mediabistro.com, it was third-party advocacy which saved the day and my reputational capital embedded in search engines.