While I take no issue, per se, with comments from non-lawyers at SJ, it’s worth noting that this is a blawg (law + blog = blawg). What that means, at least to me (and I have the only vote that counts here) is that what appears in the comments is an arguably accurate reflection of the law.
My reason is straightforward: I am concerned that someone who reads something here not be misled or confused as to the law. This is where the problem arises.
Due to the nature of the things that interest me, what I charitably refer to as my “content,” it tends to draw a group of readers who are not lawyer, but are very angry with the law, the courts, the police and the prosecutors. And they use every opportunity to make their views known.
Much as we may, at least superficially, share certain sympathies, my tolerance for these sorts of comments is limited. They are, in large measure, counterproductive to any meaningful effort to improve the things that are wrong with the system, as the nature of simplistic, angry rants reinforces beliefs that the antagonists to the system are a bunch of ignorant nuts. While finding a conspiracy under every rock, or blindly cheerleading your team against the other, may thrill the angry masses, it’s not in the least persuasive to lawyers and judges in getting them to see the light.
The other side is that the angry folks tend to significantly misstate the law. By significantly, I mean mindnumbingly, grotesquely, horribly wrong. It’s not entirely their fault, as they are neither educated in the law nor experienced in the trenches. There a bunch of other websites and blogs that are gathering places for the angry, the haters, and they reinforce erroneous understandings by promoting “experts” who may be on the right side of an issue, but get there by taking a path of ignorance and irrationality.
My view is that these websites and blogs (note blog, not blawg) serve a purpose, allowing angry people to vent and disseminate substantive information about bad things that are happening. At the same time, they make people stupider. Rarely will a lawyer stumble in and try to sort out the arguments and claims, as it’s just too difficult. These are deeply embedded, if utterly insane, beliefs.
What I fear is that SJ will become a gathering place for the angry and ignorant. I will not allow that to happen. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the anger, or necessarily disagree with the message, but I cannot, I will not, allow the comments at SJ to become a festering stew of angry people whose comments either chase knowledgeable people away or make people less knowledgable for having read them.
This happened yesterday with a comment by FitzMuffknuckle about ignorance of the law. which has become a rallying cry against cops, prosecutors and judges who err in the performance of their duties. I have great respect for Fritz, who is a moderator at Reddit’s Bad Cop, No Donut, and with whom I’ve had a number of discussions. He may not be a lawyer, but he’s shown a sincere interest in elevating the level of understanding of the law. He’s also been very helpful to me, correcting my typos and providing me with stories.
My response to Fritz was followed up by another non-lawyer commenter, who failed to take a cue from my response and instead insisted on pushing the point. That’s where I draw the line. In another example, a commenter who seems to have an incredible facility with blaming the cops even when the post has nothing to do with the police, offered what to a non-lawyer might seem to be legal analysis. It was dead wrong, but the non-lawyer wouldn’t know that.
I emailed to tell him that I would appreciate his not putting anything in his comments that suggested the state of the law, lest someone think he was a lawyer and credit his comment to their enormous detriment. When a non-lawyer reads a post written by a lawyer, they have a reasonable expectation that the information isn’t totally wrong or utterly insane. It’s my responsibility, as a lawyer and as the guy with the keys here, to make sure people’s expectations aren’t dashed on the rocks of ignorance.
And as long as I’m on this point, there is something else that has been troubling me for a while. Some of my friends in the blogosphere/blawgosphere don’t share my concerns. I hesitate to attribute reason to their choices, but they don’t seem to worry about whether things posted by others, whether in the comments or by guest writers,
The bloggers/blawgers are thoughtful and accurate when it comes to their own writing, yet feel no compulsion to act when someone else muddies the waters with misinformation. I keep waiting for them to jump in a correct some monumental error or absurdly inane comments or posts. I’m still waiting.
I recently had an email exchange with a person whose blog is both credible and informative, but who has handed the keys to the place to others while the person pursues other interests. Some of the posted in his absence were utterly ignorant. The person responded that if I didn’t like what was posted, don’t read it. Point taken. However, the lack of concern about credibility is something that will color my view from now on.
While SJ exists primarily as a vehicle for me to indulge my enjoyment of writing, there remains a critical concern that nothing that appears here makes a reader stupider for having read it. It may not endear me to commenters when I criticize what they’ve written, or tossed them off as commenters if they can’t control themselves, but that’s the price I pay for my beliefs. That others don’t share a similar concern for what appears on their blogs/blawgs disturbs me deeply.
The internet is a wonderful thing, but like all things, it can be used for good or evil. Making people stupider is evil. It’s the responsibility of every credible blogger/blawger to not let that happen.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Count me in among the non-lawyers who read your blawg regularly. I think in the 3 or so years I’ve been following your blog I’ve maybe commented 5 or 6 times.
Chalk it up to postmodernism, moral relativism, poor diet, whatever… I think the bottom line is that some people aren’t about to let something as insignificant as the facts stand in the way of their sense of righteous indignation. Of course, it’s not your job to aid and abet these people.
Keep up the good work. I’ll go back to lurking now.
In general blawgs have withered but yours is an exception. I think your policies are in part responsible.
Thanks, Jack. It’s nice to know I’m not universally despised.
Many blawgers grow disgusted by the comments. They hope for billiant conversation, and end up with inane rants instead. Others seem to enjoy the positive reinforcement, no matter how ignorant. In a weird way, it’s a reflection on the blawger.
How are the laymen to know we’re screwing up the law if no one takes the time to correct us? Thank you for making the extra effort and being that guy. I doubt you know how valuable these lessons are.
It’s funny. I try not to call non-lawyers “laymen” as if they are of some lesser intellect. It may just be semantics, but it concerns me that lawyers not be seen as elitist. We’re just people who have studied the law, as opposed to carpenters who know how to build stuff that we don’t. In other words, we’re all stupid, just about different things.
When you spoke of “ignorance of the law,” I took no issue with explaining my view. What I found to be a problem was the subsequent insistence. I fully realize that some people will disagree with me, some vehemently, no matter what I say, but the most important part of my responding comment was “just not here.”
I’m also among the non-lawyers who frequents your (entertaining, informative, maddening) blawg.
I confess to be a little confused about the issue you’re complaining about. The government in general (be it any branch, representative, executive, judicial) gets to say “oops sorry” when it offends citizens while citizens offending government generally don’t. I don’t see it as a matter of law so much as a feature of the rulers vs. the ruled. Pretty universal wherever government of any stripe exists.
Hear, hear! A great post, and one that should be read by every blogger (whether a “blawger” or a mere “blogger”). There is one legal blog I follow, whose founder is one of the most respected people in his field, and his fellow contributors are all highly respected as well. The posts on that blog, however, seem to attract an inordinate number of ranters, virtually every post getting 100+ comments, most of which are hackneyed pseudo-legal arguments, and every series of comments eventually succumbs to Godwin’s law. (To honor what seems to be your intent not to name blog names, I won’t name the blog.) Other legal blogs I follow attract a small, but very dedicated, cadre of commentors, who chime in on every post, which causes me a twinge of envy for I would like to be such a polymath. Thank you for setting such a high bar here, and being willing to take on the responsibility of policing the comments.
Lawyers don’t deal with vague, generic complaints, but with specifics. There are crimes (some malum in se and others malum prohibitum), regulatory offenses, torts, contract, all of which have their own rules as to what constitutes valid claims and defenses, what consequences they bear, what elements need to be proved. Wrapping everything up together in a big, amorphous ball covered by a facile slogan doesn’t help anyone to understand what is right or wrong, what can be done and what can’t.
Why don’t you file a 1983 action against any non-lawyer who posts here? Such actions are always viable, and always result in lots and lots of money being awarded to and collected by the filer.
There are a handful of blawgs that make me incredibly envious based on the level of discussion. Sometimes, that happens here. More often than not, I get this, not just stupidity but tenacious, entitled stupidity. It’s driven some good blawgers away when things got out of hand. You have no idea how many comments I just toss every day because they are too painfully insane to ever see the light of day. It’s almost a full time job.
Exactly. I could get RICH!!!
The funniest part of your comment is that lawyers (I hope) will immediately get it and others will scratch their head and wonder whether you’re serious.
Hey, I’m a non-lawyer and I immediately got it (thanks in part to reading informative blogs like this one). That’s not bad, is it?
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, if I ever start a band, I would like your permission to use the name “Tenacious Entitled Stupidity.”
Are you seriously asking for validation here? No, that’s not bad. That’s good. Okay?
thoughts on trench lawyers who are just lazy when commenting here?
A few people pointed out on twitter that lawyers can be just as ignorant of the law, which is definitely true and certainly sad. What I don’t understand is why someone who takes the time to comment won’t take the time to think first. Commenting is really a pain in the ass (especially with the horrible new captcha they’ve forced down my throat), so if you don’t have something worth the time and effort to do right, why do it at all?
Your moderation of comments and effort to keep your “blawg” accurate is one of the reasons I’ve been enjoying reading it the past few days (just discovered it). It’s refreshing to see any site on the Internet that has comments that even use punctuation and spelling, not to mention aren’t just angry rage-fests.
Thanks. Sam. Good word, “rage-fest.” It’s what I truly hope to avoid here. I can’t make people write good comments, but I can certainly keep the mindless anger under control.
From my viewpoint as an observer of the criminal justice process one aspect of ignorance of the law is the lack of appreciation on the part of the general public of the adversarial nature of the process.
“What’s wrong with those people, why don’t they cooperate?”
There’s plenty of anger combined with a wealth of access to information about cases gone wrong, together with a ton of misguided analysis. They think they understand. They don’t, but their ignorance is bolstered by others who are similarly angry and misguided. And when lawyers try to explain why their groupthink is nonsense, they get angry as if we’re lying to them, ruining their rage-fest by telling them there’s no vast conspiracy and everyone they hate isn’t evil.
It is not just lawyers they get angry with.
No, not at all. There’s plenty of anger to spread around.
Of mild fascination to me is how people who will follow, say, sports with incredible passion and detailed knowledge will not apply that same passion to other fields, or do the same level of fact-checking.
Quick dumb example: a large number of my clients over the years have been convinced (until correct) that you have the right to take a car back to the dealership for three days if you don’t like it, or that the police cannot arrest you if they don’t “Mirandize you” first.
Sometimes ignorance is militant and willful. I saw someone tell a Maryland judge last week that the police had no right to stop a non-commercial vehicle on the highway for speeding, that motorists have a 1st Amendment right to travel without being stopped for speeding and that an out-of-state tax case exempting non-commercial vehicles from certain sales and use taxes in that state exempted him from a Maryland ticket for allegedly doing 66 in a 50.
Most noticeable was the tone of arrogance of the motorist, almost incapable of believing that a judge would be so stupid as to fail to see the manifest correctness of his arguments and the illegal suppression of the Bill of Rights by the State Trooper issuing the citation. Similar arrogant madness one can find with “illegal tax protestor” groups.
Militant ignorance is a good way of putting it. It can be chalked up to the Dunning-Kruger effect, but the fact is that there are now a mulititude of websites that purport to be authoritative and tell them that this is the law, these are the rules, and they now know the special secret of success.
This is one of the reasons people find lawyers so tedious. We keep spoiling their special secret of success by splashing some reality on it. We’re no fun at all.