Friday, December 11, 2009

Why Can't We Be Friends?


This was exactly what I was going to say, but as usual Markus beat me to it:
“This seems out of proportion to what really is occurring. I suspect the rules are being made by people who don’t understand the computer era.”
The notion that being a "friend" to someone on Facebook could, in the words of the committee, "convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge" is just utter asshattery.

Let me give you an example.

I'm pretty sure all lawyers, living or dead, are "friends" with ubiquitous Facebooker David Barrett.

I have no idea who David is, but given his endless stream of useless and pointless promotional activity, if I ever do meet him I plan to punch him square in the face.

See how that works, honorable Bar committee?

It's a classic example of (1) coming too late to a perceived problem; (2) not understanding the fluid dynamics of a new technology; (3) using an old paradigm to address a perceived problem that has already transformed itself in a way that resolves the problem you thought you were addressing; and (4) "fixing" the now-outdated perceived problem in the entirely wrong way.

It reminds me of how they burned Beatles records because John said they were bigger than Jesus Christ.

You just don't get it, do you?

10 comments:

  1. I unfriended Barrett a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I subscribe to Ervin's YouTube channel.

    Is that a conflict?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree SFL. It undermines the confidence in the judiciary when members of the public have to walk into court and watch judges smooze with attorneys in front of them...I can think of at least one short skirted hussy that has a nasty habit of doing that in front of a certain male judge.

    Now, ordinarily that is limited to just the litigants in a case who witness that behavior. But, in the world of the internet, anytime a judge issues any order that is questioned in private or public, a curious person can jump on line and pull the judge's name down to see if the attorney's involved are connected....it just looks bad and undermines the public trust.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 11:10, I see your point and agree to an extent.

    Judges do need to maintain an appearance of impartiality, at the same time they need to maintain friendships and have a life.

    The question is one of degree. Go to La Loggia and gaze at the endless shmoozing, consider the fundraisers we are constantly being asked to host, sponsor, or attend, and the problem extends beyond Facebook and, in fact, Facebook is largely irrelevant to addressing the bigger issue.

    This is especially so as Facebook matures as do the people who continue to use it.

    This rule will seem stupid in a few years if it doesn't already.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good idea. Keep friendships hidden and practitioners in the dark like it used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have that Beatles album (and cover).

    ReplyDelete
  7. What no mention of Hector "Big Kahuna" in your article. Shout out to Hector.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry.

    Hector says he was "dropped like a hot potato."

    How's that for imagery?

    ReplyDelete
  9. ralohurln, Xrumer blogs , pJaqfFs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Quite effective material, thank you for the article.
    sex with wife | landscaping | car organizer

    ReplyDelete