Juan M announced "Stack Exchange staff will actively remove links to a legal fund campaign from user profiles and posts" and implies that this is being done "under direction from our legal team". What specific legal risks is the Stack Exchange legal team afraid Stack Exchange will incur if it does not remove these links? Would a link to a page that links to that campaign incur the same risks?

Related question on Law.SE: Can a website incur liability for linking to a funding campaign for a lawsuit against it?

In response to close votes: this question is on topic because it is asking SE the rationale behind an announced decision.

  • 15
    the law SE site might be interested in this question
    – user245382
    Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 2:33
  • 3
    @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man You wish is my command. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 3:05
  • Alex suggests that it could be seen as an admission of guilt. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 5:27
  • None really (my guess). But it also doesn't improve their chances. I can understand them not wanting to help the "enemy" (or how does one call the other side in a legal case)? Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 9:56
  • 1
    @Trilarion "Adverse party". "Opposing party" also works. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 13:40

1 Answer 1


The risk is more people would donate to "the cause". Basically they assumed this would blow over, and now the reality has hit them that it won't.

  • 18
    If you check out said GoFundMe, there are a bunch of donations that give the banning of links to it as the motivation for donating Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 2:35
  • 15
    @ReinstateMonica The rationale doesn't have to be correct to be their rationale. The rationale may still be correct, even if in the short term it causes a spike in donations. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 2:37
  • 11
    Of course, there's this not-so-new concept called Streisand effect...
    – Marc.2377
    Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 7:31
  • @Marc.2377 Yes, there is the Streisand effect, but it only works occasionally. You have to gamble a bit here. Just giving in because of the Streisand effect might be even worse for them. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 9:57
  • 3
    This is a good answer, but maybe not to this question. The question asks for specific legal risks and increasing the amount of money that the other side has may not count as legal risk really. It's a risk though. Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 9:59
  • 3
    @Trilarion I agree. Though the quote says "under direction from our legal team". I think there is an interpretation that it's a legal risk, when in reality it may be the legal team saying: "Don't give them a platform". Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .