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already transformed itself in a way that resolves the problem you thought you were addressing; and (4) "fixing" the now-outdated perceived problem in the entirely wrong way.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?