Keeping the community safely in the clear for legal issues

Question

^{This is a bit of a follow up from this Open Source meta post. You don't have to read it, though you can if you'd like some background - but everything is covered here as well. I also meant to write this up a long while back, but if you don't mind, I'll present my last year of school as an excuse :P}

A long while back, there was a bit of talk over the use of acronym disclaimers (e.g. IANAL - I am not a lawyer) that were starting to gain momentum in numerous answers over the site. Some of them were acronyms, like the classic IANAL, or things that are more wordy such as in this post.

Open Source has a foundation on software licenses, and it involves a lot of law. We want everyone to feel safe and comfortable here, while making clear to people what the law is, and why they shouldn't use an answer as the basis for a big legal decision.

To quote Dale M in this Law Stack Exchange answer:

First, there is no presumption in any jurisdiction that I am aware of that anyone is or is not a lawyer (or doctor, or engineer etc.). If people knew that you were, however, then it is reasonable that they would give your statements more weight then if they did not know. It may also be reasonable if they suspected you were. The practical purpose of such a disclaimer is to ensure that they know you aren't.

For the specific facts you give, you would certainly be in a better position if you said: "But I'm not a lawyer, so you should seek professional advice"; not so much because you told them you weren't a lawyer but rather because this changes your advice to "seek professional advice". It's impossible to be wrong with that advice!

The disclaimers that people use carry importance, and we're not attempting to dispute that. However, we were somewhat concerned with a few things:

• Do "IANAL" acronym-style disclaimers even do anything? Are they effective?
• Does the larger presence of acronyms in posts start to clutter them? Personally, I believe that posts should be clear of short forms, and be clear and professional. Will they be understood, and will they lower the quality of posts on the site?
• Are people really concerned with themselves providing an answer, or someone else interpreting the answer as legal advice?

We want to help.

So we're asking, what can we do to help solve all of this? Think of anything, be creative!

Answer 1

Do "IANAL" acronym-style disclaimers even do anything? Are they effective?

Meh, I'm not a lawyer so I can't evaluate this properly. Some material I've read suggests that the problem is not (solely) that people think you are a lawyer, but that even if they know you are not, providing legal advice is practicing law without a license. But in the spirit of not taking advice from armchair non-lawyers, we should probably ask Stack Exchange to provide us with some kind of recommendation here rather than trying to figure it out on our own.

Does the larger presence of acronyms in posts start to clutter them? [...] Will they be understood, and will they lower the quality of posts on the site?

Yes. Not by everyone. Yes.

Are people really concerned with themselves providing an answer, or someone else interpreting the answer as legal advice?

A little from column A and a little from column B.

So, my suggestions:

1. Add a banner, somewhere prominently visible to new and returning users, that reminds people not to take advice from random strangers on the internet in cases where they actually need that advice to be correct. The text of this banner should be drafted by real lawyers, not by us.
2. Aggressively close any questions where it is obvious the OP is asking about a real scenario in which they need to talk to a lawyer (e.g. "my company wants to do thing X with project Y, does license Z allow this?"). Continue to allow purely hypothetical questions about how licenses operate in theory.
3. Gradually phase out the acronyms and other detritus in cases where they are redundant to the disclaimer added in (1).
4. If necessary, create a new off-topic close reason for (2).

Answer 2

I just wanted to highlight this portion from Kevin's answer so others can upvote this suggestion specifically...

Add a banner, somewhere prominently visible to new and returning users, that reminds people not to take advice from random strangers on the internet in cases where they actually need that advice to be correct. The text of this banner should be drafted by real lawyers, not by us.

This is what they do at Law Stack Exchange, for example:

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13162/how-does-contributing-to-a-floss-project-work-from-a-legal-perspective

Answer 3

Do "IANAL" acronym-style disclaimers even do anything?

What is legal advice?

Examples that do not constitute actual legal advice:
...
- Responses to legal questions posted in online Q&A boards, even if provided by a licensed attorney

If that's true, then it seems like there is no legal reason for TINLA.

From your quote:

...there is no presumption in any jurisdiction that I am aware of that anyone is or is not a lawyer...

If that's true, then it seems like there is no legal reason for IANAL.

Of course IANAL... ;-]

While it's considerate to anticipate someone making dangerous assumptions,
it seems cleaner and more efficient for the website to be informing readers.

You could have new users read something short and to the point that they need to acknowledge they have read. I would offer the following information:

• Responses to legal questions posted in online Q&A boards, even if provided by a licensed attorney, are not legal advice.

• Be careful about making assumptions, especially in legal affairs.

• Find alternative sources of information; upvotes don't count as verification.

For anyone not logged in you could show the information directly above the answer section.

Answer 4

I think that any disclaimer is not really needed but a site-level disclaimer would be ok.