During my relative absence from the blawgosphere, I noticed some action in an old post about window tint, a sore spot for many New York drivers who learned that a foolish law, enforced for dubious reasons that bore little relation to any legitimate purpose, received some interest.  It gave rise to some concerns.

The comments reflect the anger of regular folk to this ill-conceived law and its even worse-conceived application, and offer the ideas of commenters on how to address them.  They are bad ideas.  Some extremely bad, to the point of being dangerously foolhearty.  At the time they were posted, I chose to allow people the catharsis of expressing their frustration.  Everybody needs an opportunity to vent, and this was as good a place as any.  But it struck me that some readers, and this post still gets quite a few hits on a regular basis, will perhaps wrongly assume that because this is a law blog, that the content of the comments has some merit.  They don’t.

This is not a concern about any potential liability I may have for providing space for bad advice.  I have none, thanks to Section 230, but I am still concerned for the welfare of readers who misapprehend comments left by people who have no greater clue what they are talking about than they do.  Under no circumstances should any reader assume that the “trick” offered by some commenter has any validity whatsoever. 

Indeed, no one should assume that any claims of a successful defense are truthful or accurate.  Comments are not vetted for lies.  It’s awfully easy for someone to write about their stroke of genius and good fortune, and leave others to think they have something to offer.  While they might, they similarly might not.  You can’t tell from the comment, and to accept someone’s claim is to invite disaster.

On a side note, there is an additional concern that merits mention coming from the Window Tint post.  Readers sometimes misapprehend what a blog is.  To the outsider, it’s a public space available via the internet where they are entitled to stake a claim.  It compelled me to remind a reader that she had no proprietary interest in SJ, after she invited another commenter to keep “us” abreast of his situation, and noted that all “we” have is this blog.  I informed her that she has nothing but the opportunity to comment for as long as I allow.  She responded with a typically angry comment about how mean and jealous I am to say such a thing, which I deleted and thereupon banned her from further commenting.

This is not a public square.  You are not entitled to set up your soap box where you want and talk to the gathering throng.  No matter how close you begin to feel with others who share your angst, you do not get to rule the roost around here.  Unless I allow it.  This is not a democracy.  I may be arbitrary and capricious.  I may be unfair.  You may disagree with my decisions with all your heart and soul.  But it’s my choice anyway. 

It’s not my way to delete or ban someone because they disagree with me.  In fact, disagreements are some of the most interesting discussions around.  However, there are things I won’t tolerate, which include (at my discretion and leisure) hijacking comments for readers to go off on a tangent about their personal experiences.  If you want to talk about yourself, start your own blog.  Don’t assume that people read SJ so learn about your personal war stories. 

One commenter, a while back, took issue with my shutting down his unbearably lengthy comments about his own negligible experience touching some tangential point of my posts and expressing his somewhat extreme political views.  After numerous warnings, I tossed him.  He did, however, take my advice to start his own blog where he could write whatever he wished.  He learned that he was talking to an empty room.  It’s a tough lesson to learn that no one really cares what color your boxer shorts are, or how a lawyer who has never tried a case thinks voir dire should be conducted.  Some opinions just aren’t that fascinating or worthwhile.

I am also very intolerant of a commenter who makes nasty comments about other readers or blawgers, particularly those I’ve come to know and like.  Day trippers (people who rarely or never comment) don’t get nearly as much slack as regulars.  This happened over the past two weeks as well, and upset me.  As smart as the commenter thought he was, his bizarre string of comments demonstrated a significant lack of appreciation of how snide he was and how little he was appreciated by others.  Shoot at me all you want, but do not make snide comments about other commenters.  You aren’t special enough to do that.

And a new addition to this list is the commenter who mistakenly thinks that he’s in charge of a post and thread.  No one is entitled to issue invitations or give orders around here but me.  I’ve invited your into my house for a chat.  I ask that you remember that it’s my house.  If you want to control the discussion, you can always start your own blog.  But remember, that doesn’t mean anyone cares what you think or will want to read you.