As has been the case recently, the comments to Buffs' post have devolved into personal attacks completely unrelated to the post itself. I'd like to remind everyone that they potentially face serious repercussions if their identity is found out and they've managed to piss a lot of people off.
Remember, you're all going to be looking for a jobby-job here in the near future, and I don't think you realize how quickly you can become "black balled" from a small professional community like Denver. I feel like a broken record in repeatedly stating this fact.
Finally, it isn't hard for people with administrative capabilities to find out who you are, or block you from this site. Think about that when you visit this site and trash somebody else or write total B.S. comments that are merely intended to stir the pot. Again, I encourage those individuals to start their own blog instead of strangling this one.
32 comments:
Thanks for starting a new post, Buffs. I think your general point about being careful on the blog is legit, but the last post (with the exception of one notable poster) wasn't too bad; criticism of others isn't horrible, and we all take our heat in turns. Suggesting that the admins can/will find out true identies of posters and disseminate them, however, seems a little extreme, and doesn't promote the type of friendly atmosphere which your well-intended post was intended to create. Let's all relax a little bit, realize that open discussions will inevitably include some trolling, but that it isn't the end of the world. The underwear discussion was funny.
Oops, I realize that "Bolder Law" and not "Buffs" posted this latest comment, but it doesn't make a difference because they're both truly anonymous to me.
Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent . . . With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion . . .
No worries all. The blog is traditionally a little, ahem, boring over the summer. It'll come back with all the vicious intrigue that it's famous for when school starts back up. Until then, enjoy the summer.
As for Stamp and progeny, while I for one usually appreciate your levity, it's been largely self-serving, uninteresting and rather un-funny lately. Please, either be funnier, be not as annoying or be quiet. Thanks.
anon 8:55, do you seriously talk like that?
madefromrealpantherbits,
ok.
As someone who doesn't plan on practicing in Colorado, threats of being "black balled" don't really work on me. However, I abide by a general code of conduct that I like to call "don't be a dick."
I really don't want a job from some one who calls it a "jobby-job." Loosen up, Baron VonDouche. Don't you have a bar exam to tak?
Anon 1:02, I really do talk like that . . . at least 138 years ago. Read a book.
--JSM
Anon 8:55. That's a very impressive run on sentence. I have no idea what it meant but I liked it. :-)
Ha, ha, ha. I respect the creativity and passion of the last comment.
Actually, I'm not running for president again: I'm DONE with law school. I'm sure you knew that, but I thought I'd clarify since it appears you don't know me. Controlling? Probably. A dick? No. I knew writing that post would inevitably elicit some backlash and personal attacks.
As for the comments re: threats, I apologize. My point was more of an observation. 75% of CU Law grads stay in Colorado. I'm not going to use my admin powers to find out people's identities and then "black ball" them.
As the last post demonstrates, and most know, my real identity is largely known in these parts. That's fine. I could create a new alias and start over. I could be less active/aggressive in some of the things I pursue. Unfortunately, I am who I am. I'm resigned to that fact really pissing some people off, like the person writing the comment above. C'est la vie.
Looks like someone (not me) removed the comment I was responding to. If the same person wants to re-post their comment, I'd ask that it NOT be taken down.
Boulder law you're a douche. I do believe you are now in my "black-balled" book. No, I wouldn't be douchy enough to have one of those. By the way, word of you're lameness has now spread to DU. Seeing as 51% of colorado lawyers are from DU, well, that kinda puts you in the crapper. Good luck with the bar, "Baron VonDouche." And no more deleting the referenced posts, Mr. VonDouche.
Note: all references to BL being a "dick" have been removed. The previous post stated:
Name: Bolder law is a d***
Are you running for a third presidential term? (by that I meant U.S. president, based on the empty threat to black ball, spy on citizens, etc) You should live by cadoner's personal philosophy. Bolder Law, you are a controlling d***. There is your personal attack right there. (or something like that. This is much more interesting than talking about rankings.)
[There have been three attempts to "out" people in past 24 hours, so anonymous comments are turned off for now, despite anonymous 8:55's quotation of John Stuart Mill. -eds.]
This is pretty funny. $100 says that all of these anonymous fools attacking Bolder Law wouldn't say boo using their real name, or to his face. Weak.
The DU comment was classic. Does anyone seriously think that DU people care about some blog where supposed CU Law students talk about their ball sweat?
Bolder--No need to have my back. Appreciated, but not necessary. Best of luck with the bar.
I've said it before, but anon posting, for some reason that escapes me, convinces some bloggers that they can go over the line in this forum. I dont understand why, but it does seem to be the case. Of course - caveat - there are also people who use a moniker (MS) and still cross the line consistently as well. One way or the other, there are now a number of blawggers who are perpetual line steppers.
The only thing more pedantic than going over the line in blogging is listening to self-righteous admins purporting to tell other people where that line is. Boo censorship. The authoritarian impulse is unnervingly strong in the law school population, and it’s good that there are outside restraints on these future lawyers’ ability to censor speech, because the same people honing their rhetorical skills in this forum will eventually want to be DAs, City Councilmen, and legislators. Luckily our forefathers were smarter they are, and knew that the time to protect speech was when it was most offensive—i.e., when “everyone else” on the blog knew that some comment “crossed the line.”
The end of anonymous comments came with all the authoritarian fiat we’ve come to expect from our benevolent blog leaders, and it gave lie to their claim that their earlier end to anonymous comments was just to get us all through finals . . . The fact that the “outing” which led the end of anonymous comments this time was of one their own just goes to underscore how decisions on speech shouldn’t be left to a censor's whim (or even well-intentioned judgment), because his own views of right and wrong will inevitably color his decisions . . .
This isn’t a First Amendment issue, and the blog has the right to do what it wants. Still, the admins can’t both claim to respect free speech and pull stuff like; if they do so, they’re lying--either to us, or to themselves—about what free speech really means and when it's important.
Man, I haven't been checking the blog much b/c of the whole trying to pass the bar thing. The tone and topics have really gone down hill. I am all for entertaining posts but I expect slightly more intelligent humor out of graduate students.
As for John who is so worried about free speech. If you want a blog with anonymous comments that you can admin w/ benevolence and openness, start your own. Holy crap it takes less than 20 mins. Post a link on this blog and you will get plenty of hits. Otherwise quit whining about how some runs a blog that they started.
John,
Very eloquent. Couple of questions for you, though:
1. Why do you edit the articles published in the Law Review? Is that by "administrative fiat"? Would you publish an article that refers to someone as a "douche"?
2. Many law reviews around the country have started blogs. Do they allow anonymous comments? Why?
3. There are a ton of law professor blogs, including ones that specialize in First Amendment issues. Do they allow anonymous comment? Why not?
3. Look around at any of the blogs published through the NY Times, ESPN, LA Times, Wash Post, etc. Do they allow anonymous comments? Why? Are they not strong advocates for First Amendment rights? Don't they support free speech? Are they all "lying" to themselves and us?
Bolder, you made some assumptions, but that’s okay.
Basically, I think words can’t hurt people, and am in favor of letting people say what they want, even if we find it objectionable. Maybe I’m unreasonable in that way. The blog is more fun when there are lots of people talking about lots of things, not just two comments a day from the same people, over and over. I see no problem reading through mean-spirited, inane, or just plain dumb postings which anonymous commenting permit, especially since these comments in no way diminish from the ability of the refined, responsible posters to say what they want, as well. (This is especially true since the definition of “dumb,” “inane,” and “refined” shift from person to person, and from issue to issue). In addition, anonymous commenting sometimes allows great gems to slip through, particularly from people who wouldn’t otherwise post if they had to go through the trouble of creating an account. I prefer to accept lots of bad to uncover a little good, especially since the bad doesn’t really hurt anybody, and is itself often entertaining to read (as the huge number of hits during the Talent Show debate demonstrated).
Your NYTimes, Washington Post, and Law Review arguments are inapposite because a blog is not a formal publication--it’s very purpose is to promote discussion, at least in blogs like this one. (Your example of law professor blogs are different because they’re intended as a mouthpiece for a particular speaker on a particular subject, and thus are more analogous to true publications). If you wanted to have a true analogy, it would be to restricting blog use (or magazine publication, or newspaper publishing), to just a few people who don’t “cross the line,” and who always identify themselves in their publications. Each publication has a right to use its own corporate voice to say what it wants in a national discussion, and I think that each person should have his own right to say what he wants in a blog-facilitated discussion. (Of course, the creators of this blog could decide that they just want to use the blog to promote one idea, or one type of message, or one type of poster, and that’s fine. All I was saying in my previous post was that the creators could not then (in good conscience) tell themselves that they were promoting open discussion and free speech. That’s a factual observation, not a moral condemnation).
I don’t particularly care one way or the other, and know that people’s predictable response will be to “go somewhere else” if I don’t like it here. That’s fine. I just like free speech and thought I’d put in a good word for it. Feel free to write me off if you disagree.
Bolder, I almost forgot—I found out about the end of anonymous commenting, ironically enough, after writing a comment in your defense when you were attacked in the last post, and then finding myself unable to post it. I thought (and still think) that you handled the unwarranted attack with aplomb and good humor, and had written that I’d be happy to recommend you for a job, should it ever come up. (Which is still true; I think blog discussions are meant to be a sparring ground of pure ideas, but that no one should hold differences of opinion against each other). Anyway, I only bring it up to demonstrate the type of chilling effect and diminution in ideas that is created by the end of anonymous commenting, and wonder what else has gone unsaid in the past few days because people can't easily post.
Anybody notice that right above the comments box are links to the Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct and the EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers. The code of conduct is a must read for this issue, even if you disagree with it. John, how hard is it to have an account and take personal responsibility for the statements you posts? Mushroom Stamp has stirred the pot just fine on a variety of issues, and he is always ready to back up his statements when challenged. Isn't that the ideal?
Your discussion with Bolder has more productive since you and Bolder have had to be accountable for what is said. The blog may be slower, but more productive in my opinion.
NJL—Thanks for the comment, and I just want to say that I’m out of this discussion; we’ve had it before on this blog, and everyone can probably recite the arguments pro and con from heart. “Taking responsibility for the statements you post” isn’t automatically a good thing, because it links ideas to people, rather than allowing the ideas to stand on their own. There’s something to be said for judging ideas on their merits, not what you’ve already pre-decided about the speaker. (This is why the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms--because the authors knew that they had to persuade through ideas, and that their ideas wouldn’t be given a fair hearing if the readers associated those ideas with the particular speakers and their political parties). Anyway, along that line, I don’t want to be a self-appointed lighting rod in this forum, and I don’t really care how you guys come out on the anonymous commenting thing. I’ve said my piece, so I’ll leave the discussion to others.
John, You may be out...but I have to ask one thing; are you really comparing anonymous posts using terms "douche", "Baron VonDouche", calling Bolder a d*** and so forth as on par with the Federalist papers? Your point is well taken about ideas standing for themselves, but the papers were also written anonymously because the authors, amongst other reasons, feared being tried for treason and hung. I like the anonymous comments when the author is bringing something of substance to the table, which occurs most of the time. These ideas should stand for their own... But when one hides anonymously to attack ad-hominem or with slurs, the whole idea of anonymous comments loses legitimacy.
Alright, I’ll respond, and then I’m out for good.
Of course there is no comparison between ad hominem attacks (or anything else written on this blog) and the Federalist Papers. Nonetheless, as I mentioned before, the time to protect speech is when it is most reviled by the mass of the popular opinion, because this is the only time it’s really in peril. That’s why the ACLU has advocated for the American Nazi party’s right to protest, and why I was sticking up for anonymous jerks with whom I completely disagreed. Everyone is happy sticking up for and promoting speech that is “of substance,” so it's not really sticking up for anything.
The Federalist Papers were written in 1788, as part of the ratification debate. No one was going to hang Madison, Jay, and Hamilton. Nonetheless, there is a long history of anonymous speech in this country, both during and after the revolution, and it’s not anything shameful.
Anyway, I’m out for real. Good luck.
John, I'm enjoying this discussion, so it saddens me to read that "you're out." I understand, though, and respect that decision.
We've written about this at length before, but I respectfully disagree on your point about valuing that one golden gem of a comment above the inane banter that overwhelms this forum. I think writing irrelevant commentary is a disservice to the many people who care about the multitude of issues and problems at CU Law b/c it becomes so easy to dismiss this site as only a crass gossip forum. Like notmadefromrealpants wrote before, I enjoy humor. But a debate about which class is cooler or can party more makes this blog look like a bunch of students at Paris Hilton Law School.
Finally, as a point of clarification, I did NOT turn off the anonymous commenting. That decision was made independent of me.
You're right John, I was thinking more about the prior anonymous letters written during the Revolution. My mistake.
I think John’s on the money here. It seems that the decision to turn off the anonymous comments was made by someone who is concerned about the "reputation" of the blog. F that dude. It's a blog. It's not a law review article. It's not a publication akin to the NY Times. It's a blog – a forum meant to foster dialogue amongst its users. If nothing else, we should collectively decide what the blogs’ purpose is so that everyone is on the same page. Are we trying to recruit for CU Law on this blog or improve our US News and World Report ranking? (which means let's sanitize it). Or are we trying to provide a forum for all students (and admittedly, some not so students) to talk to one another? (It certainly can be both, but that decision should be made collectively and “regulation” decided accordingly.)
Anonymous comments are at times (and more so lately than not) off-topic and at times vituperative, but every once in a while, like John pointed out, there’s a gem of a comment. If people are "called out," fine, delete that particular comment, but it doesn't follow that the rest of the anonymous comments should be shut down particularly because they seem to foster a wider audience for this particular blog.
Regardless of the above arguments (i.e. you feel like it doesn’t take much to create a blogger account and the harm has been greatly exaggerated by those that cry that their free speech rights have been infringed), doesn’t anyone else have a problem with the change of blog format by fiat? The singular admin., who took it upon himself to cut off anonymous comments, failed to consult with the rest of the contributors on this blog. That's a problem. This blog doesn't belong to one person, it belongs to many. In that vein, at the very least, there should be a vote amongst the 20 or so individuals that contribute regularly to this blog. Don't decide on your own.
I vote that anonymous comments be brought back and it is my understanding that my vote counts double.
Post a Comment