blogs

Ethics Dunce: The ABA Journal

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments
"I just know we're forgetting something! "Effects"? No, that's not it..."Ethanol"? No, no..."Prosthetics"? Arrrgh! What IS it?

“I just know we’re forgetting something! “Effects”? No, that’s not it…”Ethanol”? No, no…”Prosthetics”? Arrrgh! What IS it?”

This is as disheartening and it is shocking. The American Bar Association Journal, the monthly magazine of the nation’s largest lawyer organization and in many ways the face of the legal profession in the United States, just announced its 6th Annual Blawg 1oo, its reader-chosen list of the best law-related blogs on the web. There are many excellent blogs honored, of course; indeed all of them are useful or entertaining. I’ve visited most of them, and some, like Popehat, the Legal Professions Blog, Above the Law, the Volokh Conspiracy, Scotus Blog,  the New York Personal Injury Law Blog, and Over-Lawyered, I check on several times a week. There is a remarkably wide range of blog topics covered, including superhero law, practicing law in China and zombies. Guess what’s not covered?

Legal ethics. Continue reading →

Quick Ethics Quiz….

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

I routinely edit blog comments for typos and minor grammatical mistakes, both to assist with clarity and reading and also as a Golden Rule exercise—I have typo issues myself, as regular readers well know.

This comment just turned up on Edward Carney’s Comment of the Day (from September of 2011) about flying the Confederate flag:

“I know what the confederate flag means. I am not racist. I wanted to show that I am not for whats going on in this country. Their is a lot of people like me.You cannot change history.You can make new history with it.”

I was tempted not to fix it (there are four errors) but I decided that would be unfair.

Should I have left it as it was?

Comment of the Day: “Most Entertaining Ethics Alarms Discussion Ever: A Salute”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Reader Yardley’s observation on the endless back and forth between a peculiar commenter and her critics here is worthy of Comment of the Day status, if only to make us pause to consider why we are arguing, and what we are really arguing about. Here is his observation on the Most Entertaining Ethics Alarms Discussion Ever…

“I can’t help but wonder what the value of such debates are once the primary points and counter points have been stated, and restated; then restated once again ad nauseum. I don’t have the answer of course, but it has got my wheels spinning. Maybe there’s merit in it, or maybe it’s about flexing our egos, or maybe it’s a sort of meme warfare… ideas battling it out for control over our brains. Certainly, it is entertainment! The most I can say is that the spectacle of it all somehow subtracts from content. Worse yet, at a certain point those on the rational side of the argument only serve to give status to the mistaken party. When a clash of ideas turns into a Hundred Years’ War, even the winners get a bloody nose.”

________________________________

Graphic: XKCD

A Directory of Answers For the “Instalanche” on “Funny! But Wrong: The “Harry Reid Is A Pederast” Rumor”

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Ethics Alarms just isn’t constructed for large waves of angry commenters, as are occasionally generated when I touch on some interest group third rail. I try to respond to as many coherent comments as possible, but when too many of them arrive on the same topic, my “civilized colloquy on ethics” model breaks down, and I find myself spending too much time writing dangerously hasty responses to trolls, fanatics, web terrorists and others who have as much interest in ethics as I have in stamp collecting. I also have to individually green light every new commenter, and this alone takes up time that could be better spent researching and writing new posts.

Legendary conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds generously linked to my recent post on the “Harry Reid is a pederast” campaign online, and that’s generally a good thing, one that most bloggers would give their right arm for,since his blog Instapundit is one of the most popular (and professional) on the web. This, in turn, triggered the so-called “Instalanche” at Ethics Alarms, which has resulted in this blog getting the equivalent of two weeks of typical traffic in 24 hours. Sadly, the vast majority of the comments following the Instalanche are examples of the kind of thinking this blog was established to combat, and as a whole, the group is a graphic example of why political discourse, and indeed the political system itself is so toxic and dysfunctional. This is no knock on Prof. Reynolds, whose blog I read most days, and who is almost always rational and fair. It is a knock on the majority of his readers (not all) who chose to leave comments here.

The comments were, in addition to being non-ethical in nature, brain-meltingly repetitious in their fallacies and themes. It’s bad enough having more comments than I can keep up with; having to read nearly identical sentiments over and over again is more than I can stand. And since it is clear that most of the commenters aren’t  bothering to read the thread, never mind the links in the posts they are railing about or the rest of the blog, this is not going to cease anytime soon. Yes, I know that most of this breed of commenter doesn’t want a response, because their comments are seldom thought through or carefully crafted, and they are shocked to have their sloppy reasoning called so. (Then they accuse me of ad hominem attacks.) Too bad. This isn’t a bulletin board or a graffiti wall.

So I’m no longer going to answer individually the vast majority of the comments on the post in question, “Funny! But Wrong: The “Harry Reid Is A Pederast” Rumor,” just as most of you will not have the time, stomach or stamina to wade through all the comments to it. What I offer for the convenience of everyone concerned, but mostly me, is this, a directory of the most common comments from the current Instalanche, and my answers to them. I will direct all future commenters on the original post here, and the odds are that they will find their reply waiting for them. Continue reading →

Funny! But Wrong: The “Harry Reid Is A Pederast” Rumor

/ Jack Marshall / 322 Comments

Not fair. But deserved.

Various conservative-minded blogs, including some of the most eminent and well-respected, have flooded the internet with “Harry Reid is a pederast ( or pedophile)” rumors, innuendos and suggestions, like this one, from Red State:

“Harry Reid is a pedophile”

“I got that from a reliable source who made me promise not to reveal his name.  But he knows.  Honest. Now I’m sure some would expect me to back up this claim with some of those “fact” thingys or maybe a link or two.  Well, given that I’ve promise anonymity for my source, not happening.  Just Google “Harry Reid pedophile” there are 1.79 million hits. I’ve known this for some time but I was reluctant to go public with the information because I always back up my writing with facts and links.  Since I’m sworn to secrecy this time I was uncomfortable putting this story out until some seminal events occurred this week, and I figured “what’s good for the goose…” Continue reading →

“Why Do I Bother?” Department

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Oh, the hell with it…

The publication “The Week” quoted and linked to my post about the Joe Paterno statue controversy, presumably because I was among the few to make an argument that Jo Pa’s statue should stand without doing so on the basis that the coach “made only one mistake” or that the football program he built and his coaching career are severable from the little matter of him allowing his former colleague to keep raping little boys for over a decade.

My mistake was reading some of the comments on Yahoo!, which is chock full of commenters who mocked my conclusion without either reading the post or comprehending it. For example, Dave, a non-reader from Texas, responds, “Leave it up as…what? A monument to pederasty in sports?” to applause from 17 sheep. I believe I answer that question, Dave, and the link is right in front of your damn face. Continue reading →

Savage Nightmare: Into the Valley Of Spin, Deceit and Lies

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

When Perez Hilton is the MOST ethical participant in a chain of internet lies, spin and deceit, you know you’re in trouble.

The dishonesty in the world of blogs and partisan websites is so pervasive, the determination to deceive so great, and the willingness to distort, confuse and misinform so ingrained and shameless, that an objective understanding of some politically-charged events become literally—and I mean literally literally, and what Joe Biden means when he says literally, which is “figuratively”—impossible. Does this fuel the destructive partisanship that causes public discourse to be about “gotchas” and point scoring rather than collaboratively addressing societal problems? Absolutely.

I fell into this muck today when I made the mistake of visiting the Breitbart website for the first time in months, to see what it was evolving into now that Andrew has left us. Eureka! Here was a post by Ben Shapiro saluting Perez Hilton, the petty and reliably ethics-challenged gossip columnist (there is no such thing as an ethical gossip columnist) for breaking ranks and criticizing Dan Savage for his anti-Christian, abusive rant to high school journalists in what was supposed to be a speech about anti-bullying initiatives. This signaled to me that Hilton had an Ethics Hero designation in his immediate future, for properly chastising unethical conduct by an ally: like Savage, Hilton is gay and active in anti-bullying efforts.

Shapiro wrote:

“Hilton has long been an advocate of anti-bullying, and it is heroic of him to stand apart from the rest of the media, which has buried Savage’s bully tactics or brushed them off as unimportant. Savage, as Hilton points out, has lost his credibility as an anti-bullying advocate with such actions. And yes, Hilton has cut a video on behalf of the It Gets Better Project.

“It wasn’t any of the big time celebrities who have endorsed and supported Savage’s It Gets Better Project who stood up against him. It wasn’t folks like Jane Lynch or Neil Patrick Harris or Josh Duhamel or James Marsden or Janet Jackson or Jennifer Love Hewitt or any of the dozens of other stars who could have done so. It wasn’t the folks in the mainstream media, who have completely ignored the story, or justified Savage’s behavior. It wasn’t the elected leaders who have used government resources to direct traffic to Savage’s program who stood up to Savage’s bullying here. It wasn’t President Obama or Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack or the Department of Justice or the White House Staff or Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

“It was a gossip columnist.”

The Perez quote cited by Shapiro to justify this extravagant praise was this:

 “UGH ….Savage later called the walk-out “pansy-a**ed” which, from someone who helms an anti-bullying campaign, is obviously a very negative thing to say ….Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?” Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Business Practices: Online Reputation Services”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

For those offended by the fact that this is the second Comment of the Day, I can only note that I haven’t posted a COTD for a while, so they can consider this one as making up for say, September 9.

Tgt has some uncomfortable truths about the practicalities of taking principled stands, in the context of my discussing the dishonest and bullying tactics of so-called online reputation protection services without specifically naming any one company.

There are gradients of this dilemma, which I’m not sure the author sufficiently acknowledges. For example, in the recent Defense of Marriage Act controversy in which law firm King & Spalding arguably dumped an unpopular representation because of inappropriate but no less threatening warnings from its biggest client, there are core professional values involved: once a lawyer ( or firm) accepts a representation, he or she may not, consistent with professional norms, drop the new client because of fear that the representation will have unpleasant consequences. There is no ethical obligation, however, to engage in a protest or civil disobedience when one objects to an abuse of official power. There is an obligation to do something, and it is ethically legitimate to choose a course that addresses the wrong without causing unnecessary harm to oneself or others. One not  cowardly by not being foolhardy.

Unless I accept John Adams’ rather perverse conviction that the only way one knows one is doing the right thing is when he is certain that the consequences will be personally ruinous, I don’t agree that I have failed an ethical obligation by choosing to flag unethical conduct without specifically inciting a company whose business it is to intimidate websites.

Besides, as I noted in my response to this comment, I am not through with these guys. Not by a longshot. But here is tgt’s Comment of the Day to my opening volley: Continue reading →

Unethical Business Practices: Online Reputation Services

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Consider this just a polite request to remove that accurate but ucomplimentary post about my client.

The web has created some new business niches, and one that fascinated me was the emergence of online reputation defenders, who purport to make sure that Google searches and web research about individuals and businesses do not turn up negative information that can harm business prospects, career advancement, or reputations generally.

While I can see the appeal and potential profitability of such services, manipulating online content is an ethical gray area. It is as wrong to artificially make someone look good  on the internet as to artificially make them look bad. In general, anyone who has been out and about very long will find both positive and negative information about themselves on the web, of varying accuracy. People who have experience with web research understand this, so the impressions they get from checking out a potential employee or business partner will usually, though not always, be tempered with skepticism.

They can and should apply common sense: What is the source of the negative information? How old is it? Was this one incident or complaint that doesn’t seem representative of the individual or company as a whole? I would rather have all the information available, and be able to make my own decisions, rather than have the most favorable material elevated in visibility and the least favorable made difficult to find or removed altogether. These services promise to “bury” the negative material. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day on “The Twins and the Amazing Hockey Shot: the Public Flunks Its Ethics Test…Badly”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Reader Jim Weaver came up with an especially deflating and insulting Comment of the Day by taking literally my lament, in the post about the twin winning, then being denied, a cash prize while masquerading as his brother, that I was disappointed that after almost a decade of my ethics commentary that the public was still ethically out to lunch.

His comment:

“Did you really think that this blog would make a difference in America’s ethics? Is that really why you write this thing? If so, then you should be depressed because you are sadly deluded. 99.99% of the country has never heard of you or read your blog.

“I thought you wrote it to get attention and to try to drum up business for your training company. Just exactly how many readers do you have anyway?” Continue reading →