Writing stuff on the internet can bring some interesting reactions. Some informative, occasionally brilliant, reactions. Some nasty, ignorant reactions. Lots of people out there. Lots of reactions. My pal, Mirriam Seddiq, has decided that if someone wants to write something nasty, they have to own it.
It was nice back when I didn’t know any better and I just let you have your say, not moderating your comments which were, on occasion, not so kind and frequently, not so clever. But, I’m sorry, it’s you, not me. Or maybe it’s me. But we’re through. I need a name. I need to know who you are and someday soon I’ll move to a platform where you will have to put in a valid email address so I will know who you are.This has long been a sore subject in the blawgosphere, with some going the real name route and others, like me, skirting the issue. Mirriam offers her reasoning:
Your advice means nothing to me if I don’t know whether I should take it – are you a high school kind on the debate team, a lawyer who just graduated last year and feels that they should be able to advise the rest of us on how this system and this profession works, or a real live lawyer who has fought in the trenches and has something of substance to say?
This seems to be the perpetual dilemma for law bloggers, with the biggest problem that the former and latter don’t quite match up well. Yet, no one has as yet figured out a way to fix the problem.
Perhaps Mirriam’s decision was based on attacks by one anonymous commenter. Whether a troll or merely someone who, for some inexplicable reason, just didn’t like her, she was disinclined to suffer some angry, nasty, stupid commenter. She’s entitled. Being a blawger may well subject a person to scrutiny of one’s peers, and indeed (in my view) it should. But that doesn’t mean suffering the slings and arrows of anonymous attackers.
In the last few days, I’ve pondered the same question as well. Someone decided that a post of mine was worthy of dissemination to a group of non-lawyer, freedom-loving, government-hating people, and they, in turn, decided that it was imperative that they voice their views. While the upshot may well have been similar to my views on the subject of the post, the content of their comments was not. They were mindless rants, presented in formats akin to conspiracy theorists in tin foil hats. It’s not that I necessarily disagreed with their sentiments, but that their presentation was just horribly ignorant. Frankly, it was embarrassing to have such a massive showing of stupidity on my blawg, even though they agreed with what I wrote.
Most of the comments never saw the light of day, whether because they involved bizarre interpretations of law (“we the people” means that we don’t have to follow any government’s law) or screamed for the overthrow of the government, or ranted about how the various perceived wrongs have destroyed, well, whatever the commenter didn’t want them to destroy.
These weren’t trolls at all, but a bunch of very angry people. When I didn’t embrace them, they grew angry with me for not being sufficiently supportive. It happens.
To me, the real question was never the commenter’s name. It’s no big deal to get a gmail account in the name of John Smith and use that name when commenting. Some names, like The Last Sane Man on the Internet, informs me immediately that the commenter is a nutjob, as no sane person would call himself that. But John Smith sounds like a perfectly normal name. Unfortunately, it tell me nothing about who the commenter is.
If the comment is substantive, then knowledge about the commenter may be irrelevant. The idea will either bear out or not. But most comments, at least to some extent, are normative, expressing the commenter’s personal support for, or again, a particular position. They often express feelings or impressions, and include anecdotal information in support of their position. These mean nothing without know who the commenter is.
That’s what I want to know. That’s what makes a comment meaningful to me, and to everyone else reading it. If you’re not a lawyer, then your “legal advice” carries no weight. If you’ve been in private practice for three weeks, then your perspective on the right and wrong of private practice isn’t particularly persuasive. I’m sorry if you think every thought you have is of earth shattering importance, but it’s not.
My background is an open book, all laid out for the world to see. Whether good or bad, it is what it is. If someone wants to know whether my views are substantiated by my experience, it’s all there to see. Sometimes people will ridicule me because of it, but I can’t help that. My background is what it is, for better or worse.
What I seek is to have what I consider to be interesting discussions with interesting people who bring some knowledge to the table, from whatever source that is. What I don’t seek is to have my blawg used as a soapbox by angry people who agree with me but offer nothing thoughtful or intelligent, just their expression of personal outrage backed up the ability to emphasize their point using the shift key. Intelligent voices won’t get involved in discussions where lunatics have invaded, so merely allowing the rants to get out of control is death to real discussion.
Does this offend you, that I, the guy with his finger on the delete key, can be so arrogant in dismissing your very important comment because it fails to meet with my approval? Tough nuggies. This is my home. You’re free to start your own blog and run it any damn way you please, but you don’t get to tell me how to run mine.
I hope Mirriam doesn’t feel too badly about moderating comments. She’s got a very interesting and popular blawg, and that’s part of the price one pays for attracting readers. But getting names won’t be the end of her problems. It can be painful to delete comments from people who are sincere, but unless one wants to become the home to some very angry or crazy people, it’s the only answer. And once the nutjobs take over a blawg, it’s not likely to attract much meaningful discussion amongst lawyers.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discouraging nutjob and non-productive comments won’t really increase your traffic, and as a result, your Google ranking will go down. I would strongly consider whether this is a good marketing decision. For you to forget that it’s all about traffic, and numbers, is dangerous. You may lose business.
By the way, my Mom used to say “tough nuggies” all the time. All the time.
All the time? Seriously?
IANAL, but my legal “advice” does carry weight, irregardless of what you say. That’s where you’re wrong. You know why? Did you ever hear of “common law”? I’ll bet you did somewhere in your travels. Ha!
Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, so is “law” way too important to be left to the lawyers, attorneys, prosecutors, judges and justices–whatever you call yourselves.
Don’t forget: Laws used to be made by civilians not trained in the law. That is our history and heritage. Through the decades and centuries, somehow things got twisted. These days, many if not most legislators are themselves lawyers. IMO, this is not a good thing. This is a bad thing.
More and more of our presidents are lawyer. Imagine if Bush #43 had been a lawyer. If you think he was naturally tongue-tied, imagine how discombobulated he would be if trained in the law. (His daddy would have had to pay someone to take the bar exam for him!) Alas, the legal profession was saved the embarrassment of the possible arrival of this Dennis-the-Menace.
The way I see it is, lawyers are birds of a feather who flock together. You all know each other, and there is–from a careful reading of this essay as well as most of your other essays–an informal pecking order in your guild which often leads to severe and grotesque interpretations and applications of so-called laws. I’m talking about selective enforcement and existence of a sliding-scale of punishments meted out, depending upon the status, wealth and/or the importance of the supposedly guilty party.
There are too many laws “on the books” anyway. When does one have the time to read, study and learn all of these useless laws? (God save the Queen!?!)
To be honest, I don’t like you lawyers. You engage in the only profession I know which gets paid up front, in cash. You get paid when you make mistakes; you get paid to make mistakes if you’re a stewpid prosecutor, and incompetent judge or a well-intentioned but overwhelmed public defender. You get paid to distort and obfuscate the issues and the truth. The are reasons why we the common citizenry dislike you lawyers so vehemently.
I do like to follow the law blogs however, since discovering. I’ve learned to admire your blog here, SHG, and I drop in on Mirriam now and then.
You are a timely sort of fellow, and rarely has a comment been more appropriate for a post then this.
As an anonymous blogger, a lot of criticism against anonymous comments to me feels like a bit of “I have enough job security to use my real name, so my opinions carry more weight than yours.” In the world of law, where firms are hyper-PC and check your Facebook profile for embarrassing photos, anonymity just makes sense. Why risk losing your job because you hold an unpopular opinion about diversity, or Israel, or SEC football?
This post though points out what I think a lot of people miss; whether identity matters depends on what the comment is. Substantive legal information? Yeah, I want to see your CV before I run to court. An argument about free speech? That should stand on its own, independent of who said it.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are incapable of processing nuance and need things to be black or white, either anonymity is always okay or never okay. For instance, when Lawyerist ran a piece about my site, I got a lot of criticism for having anonymous writers, because, apparently, not knowing my real name means you can’t tell if a joke is funny.
As for the raving political nutters you’ve dealt with, I wonder if it’s accurate to say they agree with you. They might vote the same way, but if they’re too stupid to process what you write, are they really in agreement? Saying “I agree” is different from the cognitive process of holding an agreeing belief.
All the time in the internet sense. Meaning she really said it like 6 times. Actually, once when I was 11. Or maybe I heard it somewhere else, or thought I did.
Having expressed an opinion or two here, and having taken my lumps for it, I’m not particularly sympathetic about the right to speak out while bearing no consequences for one’s opinion. I like consequences. It keeps people honest.
That said, I leave it to each individual to decide whether they have the stones for their views. If who they are matters, then maybe their comment carries less weight. Or no weight. That’s the consequence on the other side.
As for my nutjobs, of course there’s no real agreement, as they come from a different universe, where the thought that goes in to formulating an opinion doesn’t exist and it’s all a matter of knee jerk outrage. But they see me, given their read of my views, as their comrade in arms, and thus expect us to lock arms and sing about Joe Hill. They get riled when they find out I can’t carry their tune.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Awesome. I have rarely been more proud to be a member of the blogosphere. (Also, for the record, us computer programmers get paid for making mistakes too. So don’t feel to bad, Scott.)
When it comes to anything controversial or politically incorrect, consequences don’t keep people honest, it just keeps them quiet.
I’ve written a controversial, and even a politically incorrect, post or two. But I’ve got broad shoulders. If it keeps them quiet, maybe they don’t have that much to say, or whatever they have to say isn’t that important.
Actually, I envy you your nutjob commenters. At least you get commenters. Judging by the number of comments my posts get, the most important thing I’ve ever written is that Sprint is not a very good phone company. Sigh.
Also, as you know, I’m a libertarian blogger, which means I’m probably at least half nutjob myself, whether I know it or not, so some of these people would fit right it. (Come to think of it, I wonder if you’re talking about me…Nah.) So please, my brothers and sisters, stop bothering Scott and come hang out with me. We can talk about legalizing all drugs, the right to carry guns in preschools, and disbanding the federal reserve. It will be a hoot.
Or they have to interview for jobs, or go before a C&F committee.
You never know. Maybe an employer would like a kid lawyer with stones.
Sadly, many of the nutjob commenters come from a link at a political, as opposed to legal, blog. Politics are fascinating, but everybody isn’t Bill Buckley. There are a lot more people with very strong political opinions. Not all have either the ability to express them rationally, or much to back them up, but they all think they do.
Perhaps you can increase your nutjob traffic by tweeting your columns to them instead of simply relying on them to find you online. I learned all about this today from a young tweeter who is now the NUMBER ONE tweet-counselor for lawyers in the entire country… His website says he interviewed with some of the biggest law firms in Idaho…
“If the comment is substantive, then knowledge about the commenter may be irrelevant. The idea will either bear out or not. But most comments, at least to some extent, are normative, expressing the commenter’s personal support for, or again, a particular position. They often express feelings or impressions, and include anecdotal information in support of their position. These mean nothing without know who the commenter is.”
“Substantive legal information? Yeah, I want to see your CV before I run to court. An argument about free speech? That should stand on its own, independent of who said it.”
BL1Y can say almost exactly the opposite of SHG because the identity of the writer might fairly be considered relevant in all contexts.
Those who want it otherwise—who wish that their anonymous arguments would bear the same weight as the arguments of those who have nothing to hide—ignore at least 2,500 years of the study of rhetoric. Whether in the barroom, in the bedroom, in the courtroom, or on the internet, ethos matters. Whining about how unfair it is will not change that.
Benjamin Franklin wrote under his own name *most* of the time. But even he saw the need to occasionally become another. However, as the owner of your press, you are entitled to publish what you wish. I suspect the editors in Franklin’s day had a pretty good idea who authored his anonymous submissions, but if they didn’t, it shows that at least they saw some merit to his remarks.
As for myself, I don’t publish because I am a nutjob, and I prefer to remain un-googleable. But I also have a Masters degree in History, am working on a JD, and enjoy the blawgosphere. You get all types…
Ah, the old Publius argument. Always fun, no matter how many times someone makes it.
Other people who have published works anonymously include Beatrice Sparks, Edgar Poe, and Frederick the Great.
But, what happens on the internet is often not anonymous, but pseudonymous. Mark Twain is a fake name, as are Lemony Snicket, Lewis Carrol, and George Eliot; all three of the Bronte sisters wrote under assumed names, Jane Austen wrote as “A Lady,” and Stephen King created the Richard Bachman persona.
Like Anonymous above, I don’t use my real name because of my Google footprint. I really don’t want a future employer to Google me an find a guide to overbilling clients and getting drunk on the job. I also don’t want family members to Google me and find stories about shitting the bed with a girl in it.
The beautiful thing about the Publius argument is that it is self-refuting.
If an Anonymous commenter thought and wrote as well as one of Founding Fathers who published pseudonymously, his anonymity might be irrelevant—if logos and pathos are powerful enough, a lack of ethos can be overlooked.
But a thinker and writer with such strong pathos and logos wouldn’t need to go around trying to imbue himself with false ethos by comparing himself to the Founding Fathers.
It may not increase traffic to discourage bad comments but I will say that I would probably not even bother to look at the comments on this blog if there were so many bad ones.
Also, I will note that SHG’s habit of actually responding to comments is a huge incentive to posting.
It’s a conversation.