If I had to sum up Simple Justice in a sentence, it’s my soapbox. What that means is it’s not yours.
Recent links from other websites, whether blogs, aggregators or something else, that cater to non-lawyers who are angry with the government, or the cops, and who view our country as either going down, or already down, the toilet, have brought a number of people to posts here where they seek to express their lay views of the horribles of America.
Some want to scream about how the Constitution is dead, while others rant about the absence of due process. Others still employ the facile descriptors of fascism or Nazism to smear the things they hate. You won’t see most of these comments because I delete them.
Then there are the folks who need to tell us about their personal experiences, using a post here as the stepping stone to write all about them. Sometimes I allow the comment to post, when it seems to serve some cathartic purpose and doesn’t go too crazy, but most of the time I delete these comments as well.
I’ve been deleting a lot of comments lately. They make me cringe.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate your reading SJ, or that I disagree with you or that you’re wrong. It doesn’t mean you’re right either, but that’s not the point. This is a blog for lawyers, discussing issues that matter to lawyers and the law. I realize that non-lawyers find these issues interesting as well. That’s good, as these are the issues that affect all of us. But that doesn’t mean that you’ve got anything to say that contributes to a thoughtful discussion.
Gross, simplistic assertions of how everything is bad and everyone is evil is crap. It illuminates nothing and persuades no one. Indeed, it does quite the opposite, making you look angry and ignorant, and suggesting to those on the edge that you’re just a lunatic, strutting around in your tin foil hat in a world filled with wild conspiracies. You chase people away.
Do you think that your personal belief that every cop is a monster matters to anyone else? Frankly, your personal belief doesn’t matter to anyone else on any subject, but on the subjects raised here, they matter even less. I know, you find yourself compelling. Nutjobs always find themselves compelling. But people who aren’t nutjobs really don’t want to join your club, and tend to get farther away just to be sure that no one confuses them with nutjobs.
The internet is a hotbed for those who want to believe the revolution is coming. Maybe it is, but it’s not going to start here. And this applies to the handful of lawyers who wear tin foil hats as well, spewing silly, simplistic arguments and filled with rage at the system.
No matter how sincere you are in your outlier theories of anarchism as the new model for society, there’s no groundswell of support. But more importantly, I have no interest in having lengthy discussions about your bizarre beliefs. Want to opine about it all day long? Go ahead. Just not here.
Am I right and you’re wrong? Maybe, or maybe not. Obviously, I believe in what I write here or I wouldn’t write it, despite the fact that this overwhelmingly obvious fact eludes many. Do you think it likely that I will change my views because some pseudonymous kid writes about his world view? It’s amazing how frequently someone informs me that I’m wrong because someone named “Justin” says so. I fear for a world where anyone would find this convincing in the slightest.
There are a ton of blogs and websites that cater to every political whim, and invite commentary from those who agree with their outrage. Some all wear the same tin foil hats, while others are well-intended by misguided, demonstrating little grasp of the subject matter but expressing some generic anger because, well, things just don’t seem to be going the way they think it should.
Go out and find a place where others will embrace you for agreeing with them. Go find people who are not only sympatico with your point of view, but want to discuss it on the same level, where issues of law or logic succumb to wild speculation and the beloved “common sense.” There are plenty of places on the internet where no one need have a grasp of the subject matter to express their views, and rants filled with outrage are applauded.
While SJ comes nowhere near the level of discussion that one finds at some of the more scholarly blogs, it remains my hope that discussion remains grounded in reality, relates to the law as it exists and not some non-lawyer’s absurd fantasy of how it should be, and furthers the point of the post. I’m interested in non-lawyers thoughts, but only if they’re coupled with some small degree of reason and focus on the issue at hand.
That some seem to think it’s an invitation to go off orthogonally toward some point that makes them angry is mistaken. Your fascinated by your thoughts? So what? You feel the need to tell the world about your problems? Go to therapy. You need to convince the world to take arms against whoever it is that is the enemy of good people like you? So give it a try.
Just not here. This is my soapbox. And if this means that I’m now part of the conspiracy, one of the enemies, because I don’t embrace your cause or don a tin foil hat. I can live with that.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Greenfield,
Yesterday (Friday, 15 July) Marty Lederman had a post at Balkanization titled: The Begolly Indictment and the First Amendment. He posed the questions in the case as follows:
“Is there a constitutional right to make posts to the Internet encouraging terrorism? To link to a bombmaking manual in hopes that some reader will use it for unlawful purposes?”
I think your post answers those questions, albeit in a less scholarly manner than Mr. Lederman might use.
There is no constitutional right to make posts to the internet. There is no constitutional right to link to webpages on the internet. There is, as you quite clearly show above, no constitutional right to comment on a private author’s page.
What the First Amendment does is limit the authority of Congress (Let’s just stick w/the basics.) to prohibit someone from posting/linking or prosecute/punish someone from posting or linking.
So, while some may complain that they can’t do X, Y, or Z on Simple Justice, you have given them all of the First Amendment rights to which they are entitled.
Though I’m a Philistine to the scholars (and I’m told that regularly when we’re throwing back jello shots), Some folks, very nice otherwise, insist that they have a right to do what they please, whether here or elsewhere. But I have the keys to the place and try to run it as a benevolent dictator. I may fall short, but I still hold the keys. Their disapproval of my exercise of fiat saddens me on occasion, but I get over it.
I have been reading your blog for a few months now and the fact that I keep coming back should indicate my level of interest. You have some great posts and some not so great posts. You seem to be a defender of freedom. Freedom is good. If that sounds like a describing 1950’s comic superhero then so be it. I know you are old. It is clear you care about your blog and the law. However, I am fascinated by one topic that you have nothing but negative things to say. “Marketing” or “Online Marketing” might even be more accurate. It seems You take shots at every lawyer who admits to using marketing tools to drive business. You hate and wont allow links. Like you say. It’s your site. You can do what you want. I am not sure how stopping online SEO links can help you with your fight for Truth and Justice. Are Marketers you Lex Luther? You have mentioned many times how marketers are snake oil salesman. What are you afraid marketers are going to do? Drive business that the a young lawyer is unprepared to handle? That would be the marketers fault? Really? Marketers are no more honest or evil than any other profession, including law. Just like you have bad lawyers, you also have bad marketers. Big deal. Find a good one. Do some homework. Ask around. Get referrals. Or dont. Keep hating marketers and dreamers and unicorns.