Comment Policy Update

It has been a couple of years since I last posted my comment policy, so here it is again:

Comment Policy

This blog allows both pseudonymous comments (accompanied by real emails, which will not appear on the blog) and fully anonymous comments (with obviously dummy emails). I may respond to the former from time to time, but I will not engage with the latter.

I will delete comments in the following circumstances:

• When they include personal attacks or insults;
• When they are irrelevant or intemperate;
• When they are whiny; 
• When they are repetitive;
• When they manifest fixations or obsessions;
• When they include lengthy rants, or even short ones;
• When they devolve into tedious exchanges;
• When they include questionable links that were not caught by the spam filter.

The deletion of comments is within my sole and unreviewable discretion, which I will attempt to exercise reasonably and sparingly (though with no guarantee that any individual reader will agree with my decisions). Please do not complain about "unfairness," as there will be no way to know which or how many other comments I have deleted.

Comments may be closed, also in my unreviewable discretion, when they have become tiresome, pointless, or otherwise counterproductive. 

Most comments with hyperlinks will be caught in the spam filter. I try to check the spam folder every few hours after a new post, so that I can release the valid ones. That is not always possible, however, so please have patience.

Finally, please remember that this is a private blog. It is neither a public forum nor an educational institution. There is no right to post comments under the First Amendment, academic freedom, or any other principle. 

This blog allows both pseudonymous comments (accompanied by real emails, which will not appear on the blog) and fully anonymous comments (with obviously dummy emails). I may respond to the former from time to time, but I will not engage with the latter.

I will delete comments in the following circumstances:

• When they include personal attacks or insults;
• When they are irrelevant or intemperate;
• When they are whiny; 
• When they are repetitive;
• When they manifest fixations or obsessions;
• When they include lengthy rants, or even short ones;
• When they devolve into tedious exchanges;
• When they include questionable links that were not caught by the spam filter.

The deletion of comments is within my sole and unreviewable discretion, which I will attempt to exercise reasonably and sparingly (though with no guarantee that any individual reader will agree with my decisions). Please do not complain about "unfairness," as there will be no way to know which or how many other comments I have deleted.

Comments may be closed, also in my unreviewable discretion, when they have become tiresome, pointless, or otherwise counterproductive. 

Most comments with hyperlinks will be caught in the spam filter. I try to check the spam folder every few hours after a new post, so that I can release the valid ones. That is not always possible, however, so please have patience.

Finally, please remember that this is a private blog. It is neither a public forum nor an educational institution. There is no right to post comments under the First Amendment, academic freedom, or any other principle. 

Comments

[anon]

There is no doubt that this is a "private" blog, and that the owners can make whatever rules they want about using it. No dispute.

However, this is the ploy being used, mainly by leftists and especially in online forums, to stifle any disagreement with their assertions. These assertions often would, by any objective standard, be judged to violate the policy expressed above, but that is another matter.

So, again, it is ok for you to post whatever you please, and delete whatever you please.

Some folks like their "discussions" to be solely expressions of mutual support, e.g. the majority of the established press and outlets like MSNBC. Rarely there is heard a dissent or a different pov, or, dare one say it, a refutation of misstated "facts" and a correction of misguided views.

It is comforting to speak in a bubble. It gives one a sense of power to exclude any dissent. It fosters a sense of superiority and solidarity, even if only a truly tiny slice of the "people" agree.

But, this is detrimental, for reasons that shouldn't need to be pointed out.

[PaulB]

anon, I've probably written more comments that disagreed with Steve than supported his position and have never had one removed. For those like you and me who choose not to use our names, it's especially important that comments be written in a respectful manner since we're not putting our reputation on the line when it comes to how we express our views.

I agree with you that too many sites have become echo chambers where dissenting views are not welcome or considered. The decline of daily newspapers where for the most part, you were exposed to reporters and columnists with dramatically different world views is a tragedy for our society. I do disagree that the echo chamber effect exists solely on one side of the political spectrum. In an ideal world, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC would all go away as they serve mostly to reinforce the existing prejudices of their viewers rather than attempt to present the daily news in a way not intended to prove the righteousness of our side, whatever that is.

[anon]

PaulB

I agree with almost everything you have said.

Add to your observations the news of the day about Facebook, that suggests that intensifying divisions may not be an accident.

Believe it or not, I do believe that Steve and everyone else here deserves respect.

Unfortunately, however, that notion - respect - can be twisted into a claimed impunity to demean others while insulating oneself from criticism.

And, I find the notion that "I won't recognize the existence of an idea unless I can personally identify (and therefore impugn, if I choose) the speaker" to be sort of antithetical to a true discourse.

"Science" for example is or should be completely divorced from identity. But, today, it isn't.

This is just one example of the unfortunate need of some to personalize and attack others rather than focus on ideas.

Finally, group think and identity politics are destroying the ability of some to get outside their conclave. Identifying the conclave - as "leftist" or "the law academy" and so forth - is not an unfair attack. It is a description of a set of ideas to which some obviously adhere without much thought about the validity of those ideas.

It is the "branding" of ideas that creates slavish devotion to assertions that are false or misleading. (If my brand say it, it must be right.) I would expect more from the legal academy, especially because the law is a regime that is founded on principles.

[Anon]

Intermediate-length rants only. Check.

[Steve Diamond]

Is it really a private blog?

You control it now Steve and for the most part that’s a good thing but it has rotated among a series of moderators over the years. These seem to emerge thru some unseen process spontaneously.

It reminds me of the story of the hippie van from the 1960s. A guy was hitchhiking down Route 1 near Big Sur. A VW van painted in psychedelic colors pulled over to pick him up. He got in the passenger seat next to a fellow long hair who was driving. A smell of a certain weed filled the van.

They chatted amiably for an hour or so when the driver asked if the passenger would take the wheel. He did so and the driver climbed thru a curtain where apparently several other folks were hanging out and getting high. The driver told the passenger he should feel free to pick up another hitch hiker and then join them in back for a toke.

Sure enough he came across a new passenger and eventually climbed in back to smoke. After a few more hours went by he asked the current driver to pull over as they reached his destination.

As he walked into the nearby town he realized that none of the people in the van when he got on were still on it when he got out. Hmmm. That van may still be out there somewhere driving up and down Highway 1. I like to think so, anyway.

I sometimes use this story to illustrate the odd “ownership” of “public” corporations.

Now sure someone possessed the title to that van but was it really a private vehicle? Is this really a private blog?

[anon]

Steve

I like your analogy.

But, as usual, there are certain memes that take hold in this radically divisive society of ours: a group adopts a theory to explain some inconvenient fact.

For example, "a private business isn't subject to the First Amendment." This statement is true But, it is being used to engage in some really onerous censorship.

I'm not referring to deleting comments in the FL. That action is not really very consequential to our society.

But deleting comments that are not really objectionable is a terrible clue to the thinking of some in this country about "discourse."

Finally, the canard about the "First Amendment." Ask yourself this: should the phone company terminate calls/callers? After all, it is a "private business."

When a forum is open to the public, it should consider itself a public accommodation. That doesn't mean NO rules. It means fair rules.

Note how often Steve refers to himself and his "unreviewable discretion."

Big tell, folks.