The Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, has hosted a number of terrific discussions recently on jury nullification (if you haven’t been by his blawg over the past week, it’s must read stuff).  In the course of heated debate, one commenter called another a “nazi”. 

This is where Mark drew the line, declaring Defending People a “No-Nazi Zone.”  The practical blawgosphere being what it is, this too naturally started a debate.  Commenters were upset with Mark’s assertion of his authority as the owner of the blawg to start, stop, limit, edit, delete, amend, modify anything that shows up at Defending People. 

There a slew of curious things that happen in the practical blawgosphere.  While comments to the lawprofs’ blogs tend to be sedate, thoughtful and sometimes pretentious, the practical blawgosphere draws a very different crowd.  Some of the readers/commenters offer some great insight and information.  Others challenge and question.  Many comments tend to be simplistic, but reflect a non-lawyers’ perspective and add to our understanding of how others perceive the situation.  These are exactly what we hope for when we post and have comments.

But then there’s a dark side to all of this that readers don’t know anything about.  There are a lot of nuts out there, and the more people who read a blawg, the more bizarre the comments become.

There is a wide variety of things that come across the comments section, ranging from people who want to use a blawg for promotion, whether self-promotional, commercial or inadvertent.  There are the anonymous ten year olds who want to vent their spleen by screaming curses and railing against whatever annoys them at the moment.  There are those who want to argue, without limitation by logic or reason, and just keep insisting and insisting and insisting that whatever they think must be right.  And there are those who want to use someone else’s blawg as their personal soapbox to pontificate on a subject of interest at mind-boggling length.

For those who have a blog, the question of how to deal with these comments is a difficult one.  To a large extent, no one wants to stifle anyone else.  The conversation takes on a life of its own, and it often produces fascinating discussion.

On the other hand, there is a tone of civility, respect and thoughtfulness that we hope to maintain.  Commenters often care little about this, since it’s not their blawg and it’s not their problem.  It’s all too easy for someone to type in words that anger or frustrate others, particularly the person whose blawg it is.  While the commenter can simply disappear, the blawger is left with the mess.  This is particularly true of anonymous commenters, who are emboldened to post particularly nasty or stupid things since nothing gets traced back to them.

There’s a lot of ugliness in the practical blawgosphere, but that doesn’t mean that drive-by trolls or pundits or children get to dirty up a blawg because their fingers can type our inappropriate words.  The word “nazi” is as inflammatory as they come, and its use almost invariably gives rise to an undesirable discussion.

Mark Bennett was right to assert his authority as Blawger to decide that Defending People would be a “No-Nazi Zone,” and I applaud his taking control.  As I stated in a comment to his post, anybody who doesn’t like the house rules should go start their own blog, and post anything they want.  Over there. 

But nobody has the right to go to somebody else’s blog and be offensive, and it’s up to the blawger to determine the house rules.  If you enjoy a blawg, and the community that develops around it, then show a little respect.  If you don’t like the blog, or the rules, then you’re free to leave.  And if you want to find a blawg where you can be as vulgar, rude, offensive as you want, there are plenty of them out there.  Just not at Defending People.  Or here.