{"id":3859,"date":"2005-05-24T17:23:53","date_gmt":"2005-05-24T21:23:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/05\/24\/free-speech-in-the-blawg-repu"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:42","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:42","slug":"free-speech-in-the-blawg-republic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/05\/24\/free-speech-in-the-blawg-republic\/","title":{"rendered":"free speech in the Blawg Republic?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

None of my favorite fictional detectives believes much in coincidence as<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
an explanation when one event looks suspiciously related to another.  But,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I’ll let you decide whether my <\/FONT>Comments here<\/FONT><\/A> on Feb. 14, 2005 are related  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to what <\/FONT>happened there<\/FONT><\/A> on Feb. 15, 2005. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Details<\/EM>:  On February 14th, Bob <\/FONT><\/FONT>Ambrogi wrote<\/FONT><\/A> that he had just discovered <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Blawg Republic<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>.   In response, my alter ego Prof. Yabut left <\/FONT>this Comment<\/FONT><\/A>:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
“A lot of us had positive things to say about Blawg Republic <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
when Denise Howell first pointed us to it on Sept. 30th. However, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Blawg Republic stopped being useful after only a couple weeks in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
existence, when it switched from listing the latest posts from the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
most popular law weblogs to having its very limited Top Blawg Posts. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Now, you can get on their top-20 list by merely linking to one of your <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
own past posts (a trick used by many weblawggers, who garner much <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the page at a time). The Top 20 list neither tells you who did the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
linking (so you can’t readily check whether the pointer was pro or con) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
nor when the listed post originated. Now, there’s really no reason to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
check this page very often.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"don't Agreeing with Prof. Yabut on the “past post problem,” <\/FONT>Evan Schaeffer opined<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that Blawg Review drove him <\/FONT>“batty,” and noted “It seems like the fix would <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be simple, but so far, no fix.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
In response, Merrick Lozano, Co-founder of Blawg Republic, did a little self-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
censoring that day, removing <\/FONT>his first comment<\/FONT><\/A> at LawSites (would love to know <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
what it said).  Merrick then left <\/FONT>a Response<\/FONT><\/A> that concluded:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Thank you for the feedback in this comments section. We are <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
looking into the past post link problem described by prof yabut <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and evan (www.blawgrepublic.com\/blog\/) as soon as we resolve it.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
I can’t tell whether the “past post link” problem has been solved. [I had, in fact,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
mentioned it at this weblog in mid-<\/FONT>Nov. 2004<\/FONT><\/A>.]  However, something <\/FONT>was “fixed”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for sure:  The freshest post <\/FONT>listed on the Blawg Republic<\/EM> page for Legal Ethics News<\/EM><\/A>  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(which has only <\/FONT>tracked one <\/FONT>site in that category — f\/k\/a<\/EM>) is the following:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
sorry, pardner . . .<\/FONT><\/A>
<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
f\/k\/a<\/EM> . . . – February 15, 2005
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
. . . but, maybe we’re not both covered.  The fight over <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
f\/k\/a:<\/EM> Frozen in time as of Feb. 15, 2005.  Must be a coincidence.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (June 17, 2005): Yesterday, I followed a Referral link to this website from <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
BR<\/EM> and discovered that only the <\/FONT>name f\/k\/a<\/EM> and our former tagline now exist <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on the <\/FONT>BR<\/EM> Legal Ethics Page<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A>.  Them <\/FONT>coincidences keep buildin’ up, don’t they?<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
most end up
stuck in mud…
cherry blossoms<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
ISSA <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT>D.L. Lanoue<\/FONT><\/A>, translator<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
potluck<\/STRONG><\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny After first praising<\/FONT><\/A> unequivocally Scheherazade’s list of “Legal Lies<\/FONT><\/A>” that purportedly <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lure lambs <\/FONT>into the Law, and then reading my Response<\/FONT><\/A>, Yeoman<\/EM> did <\/FONT>quite a bit of soul-searching <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and has <\/FONT>an important <\/FONT>discussion on Mistaking Personal <\/A><\/FONT>Unsuitability for Systemic Problems<\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the legal <\/FONT>profession.   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  If you’re going to impose an immense fine on a judge for election misconduct, why not  “noyabutsS”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
remove him or her from office?  That’s what Justice Lewis asked again in a Florida Supreme Court <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
case that<\/FONT>was decided May 12, 2005.   <\/FONT><\/FONT>Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re:  Ana Marie Pando<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, ___ <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
So.2d ___ (Fla., No. SC04-1636).  Justice Lewis had a full — and, I believe persuasive — discussion <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on this topic in In re Kinsey<\/A><\/I>, 842 So.2d 77 (from p. 38, Fla. 2003) (via sunEthics<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM>, May 23, 2005)<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny Paul Horwitz gives a litany of reasons “why he writes<\/A>” at Prawfs Blog<\/EM>.  Compare it <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with your own reasons. (via Is That Legal?)<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>   On a related topic, the Berkman Blog group<\/FONT><\/A> is holding <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a seminar on June 2 on <\/FONT>Why Do You Blog?<\/FONT><\/A>, moderated Michael Feldman of <\/FONT><\/FONT>Dowbrigade News<\/FONT><\/A>.  If <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
you’re gonna be in Cambridge, Mass., you might want to stop by.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n