{"id":4178,"date":"2005-10-26T14:50:31","date_gmt":"2005-10-26T18:50:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/26\/more-bad-neology-law-porn\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:27","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:27","slug":"more-bad-neology-law-porn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/26\/more-bad-neology-law-porn\/","title":{"rendered":"more bad neology: “law porn”"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n
L<\/strong><\/em>awyers and law professors are\u00a0purportedly “<\/span>wordsmiths<\/span><\/a>.”\u00a0 Their <\/span><\/div>\n
word-<\/span>smithing<\/span><\/a> skills are particularly important when they are playing <\/span><\/div>\n
neologist<\/span><\/a> — coining new words or nomenclature.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, <\/span>Prof. Yabut<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
and the f\/k\/a <\/em><\/span><\/span>gang are particularly annoyed to see the phrase “law porn<\/em>” <\/span><\/div>\n
catching <\/span>on in legal academia and the blawgisphere. <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\"tiny You see, the term refers to materials that<\/span> are neither “law” nor “porn.”<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Those <\/span>who<\/span><\/a> use the phrase “law porn” seem to <\/span>attribute<\/span><\/a> it to Stanford <\/span><\/div>\n
Law Professor <\/span>Pamela S. Karlan<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 I don’t have\u00a0Pam’s definition of the <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
phenomenon or concept, but <\/span>Brian Leiter<\/span><\/a> equates “law porn” with <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
“Sextonism” [named after former NYU Law School Dean John Sexton,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
who is <\/span>now President of NYU], which he <\/span><\/span>describes<\/span><\/a> as:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
“a disease familiar to law faculty, in which a good school <\/span><\/div>\n
suddenly lapses in to uncontrolled and utterly laughable <\/span><\/div>\n
hyperbole in describing its faculty and accomplishments <\/span><\/div>\n
to its professional peers. The NYU alumni magazine, <\/span><\/div>\n
which was sent to all law faculty nationwide, was so plagued <\/span><\/div>\n
by Sextonism that a Stanford professor memorably dubbed <\/span><\/div>\n
it ‘law porn’.”<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\"\"<\/a> Dan Markel has described it further (<\/span>PrawfsBlawg<\/em><\/span><\/a>, Aug. 16, 2005),<\/span> explaining:<\/span> <\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
“Judging by my mailbox at school, I guess it is now typical <\/span><\/div>\n
in the <\/span>law porn business<\/span><\/a> for schools to distribute glossy <\/span><\/div>\n
brochures to every law professor in the country that <\/span>extol<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/div>\n
the unparalleled virtues of the sender’s school<\/span> and each <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
hiccup and burp it emits.”<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
We mere mortals outside the portals of legal academia can now <\/span><\/div>\n
perhaps start to guess just what they are talking about:\u00a0A practice <\/span><\/div>\n
in which a law school bombards law faculty with materials (often very <\/span><\/div>\n
glossy and expensively produced) touting its virtues in a manner that <\/span><\/div>\n
may be somewhat exaggerated.\u00a0 The practice has spread (perhaps <\/span><\/div>\n
like a venereal disease) across the entire law school community.\u00a0 [It’s <\/span><\/div>\n
apparently<\/span><\/a> done<\/span> to help maintain or improve a school’s reputation, for <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
purposes such as the US News<\/em> law school rankings.]<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Full Professor<\/span><\/div>\n
putting an extra syllable<\/span><\/div>\n
between us<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span>john stevenson<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>, from Some of the Silence<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
As mentioned above, then, we’re not talking about law<\/em> — unless\u00a0one <\/span><\/div>\n
is\u00a0so parochial in perspective as to equate “law school” with “law.” <\/span><\/div>\n
And, we’re not talking about “porn<\/a><\/em>” or “pornography” — except, perhaps,<\/span><\/div>\n
in its <\/span>original<\/span><\/a> meaning: describing or “writing about prostitutes.” <\/span><\/div>\n
So, <\/span>why are otherwise smart folk like Pam Karlan,\u00a0Brian Leiter,\u00a0 The<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
Conglomerate<\/em>‘s Victor Fleischer<\/a><\/span>, <\/span>TaxProf<\/em>‘s Paul Caron<\/a>, and <\/span>Dan Markel<\/a> <\/span><\/div>\n
at PrawfsBlawg<\/span><\/em><\/a>, <\/span>using such a\u00a0nonsense term?\u00a0 Do they really call every-<\/span><\/div>\n
thing they don’t <\/span>like (that’s slick or glossy?) “porn.”\u00a0\u00a0(Surely, it doesn’t <\/span><\/div>\n
become “porn” <\/span>merely because there’s a lot of it in their mailboxes.\u00a0 Or, <\/span><\/div>\n
is <\/em>that the <\/span>connection?)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Are they so isolated that the\u00a0little four-letter <\/span><\/div>\n
word “porn” <\/span>is titillating <\/span>for them?\u00a0 Especially catchy?\u00a0 Do they really <\/span><\/div>\n
think “law” and <\/span>“law <\/span>school” <\/span>mean the same thing?<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
putting holes<\/span><\/div>\n
in my argument<\/span><\/div>\n
the woodpecker<\/span><\/div>\n
george swede<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, from<\/span> Almost Unseen<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
We’ve been <\/span>preaching<\/span><\/a> at this <\/span><\/span>website rather <\/span>consistently<\/span><\/a>, that<\/span> \"dictionaryN\" <\/span><\/div>\n
neologisms <\/span>should actually help explain <\/span>the concept they’re naming — and, <\/span><\/div>\n
at <\/span>least, <\/span>shouldn’t create more confusion than explanation.\u00a0 It seems to us <\/span><\/div>\n
that <\/span>we have some pretty good terminology available already to describe large <\/span><\/div>\n
amounts <\/span>of unso<\/span>licited materials: “junk mail<\/a>” and “spam<\/a>.”\u00a0\u00a0 We also have <\/span><\/div>\n
a pretty <\/span>good term for highly exaggerated claims about a product or service: <\/span><\/div>\n
puffery<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
Law schools are sending out massive quantities of magazines and other <\/span><\/div>\n
forms <\/span>of <\/span>prospectus<\/a>-like promotional materials, which\u00a0are filled with puffery. <\/span><\/div>\n
Can <\/span>you dear reader come up with a better name than “law porn” for such <\/span><\/div>\n
items?\u00a0 If it needs to be cute and “neo”, maybe “law school puffspam<\/em>” will <\/span><\/div>\n
do.\u00a0 Or, <\/span>“puffspectus<\/em>.” <\/span>Please offer your suggestions in a comment.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a> It’s not too late to improve on the term “law porn” and put it <\/span>into the dustbin <\/span>of internet history. <\/span><\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
When you Google<\/a> it today, there are <\/span>only a few <\/span><\/div>\n
results <\/span>that relate to law school promotional materials, as opposed <\/span>to porno-<\/span><\/div>\n
graphy <\/span>law and lawyers.\u00a0\u00a0 Let’s keep it that way — except for new links to <\/span><\/div>\n
this post, <\/span>of course.<\/span><\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
We all\u00a0have obligations toward our\u00a0language legacy<\/a>. <\/span>When presented with <\/span><\/div>\n
a neologism that simply fails to connote or denote the concept it has been <\/span><\/div>\n
coined to represent, we should ask the coiners to come up with a better <\/span><\/div>\n
choice — or create our own.\u00a0\u00a0 Otherwise, all we’re promoting is — um — <\/span><\/div>\n
“word porn.”<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
update<\/span><\/strong><\/em> (Oct. 27, <\/span>2005): Paul Caron covers this topic today at TaxProf<\/em><\/a>,<\/span> including <\/span>Pam Karlan’s defense of\u00a0her term “law porn,” which she provided us last night in an email exchange.\u00a0 Please go read the whole explanation,<\/span> where Karlan\u00a0focuses on the analogous term “food porn<\/strong>,<\/em>” and reminds us that “At <\/span>least within the community to which I was directing my remarks . . . <\/span>the <\/span>phrase communicates exactly what I intended: people instantly recognize <\/span>the phenomenon and share my reaction to it.”<\/span><\/div>\n
update<\/span><\/strong><\/em> (Oct. 27, 2005): Here are substitutes for <\/span>the term\u00a0 \"erasingS\"<\/span><\/div>\n
“law porn,” as suggested by our Commenters and emailers.<\/span><\/div>\n
Thanks to each of them.\u00a0 Please help us add to our list.<\/span><\/div>\n

Meanwhile, one wag has emailed to ask whether this<\/a> bookstore<\/span> has a neology section.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n