Dear Leslie,
Perhaps I'm still confused.
As I understand it, the 1st amendment only applies when the government
thwarts an individuals free speech. Are you implying that law-lib is
a government institution?
Brian
On Dec 20, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Leslie Germaine wrote:
> As I said, Brian, there are only two possible reasons. I'll let the
> application of 1st Amendment principles to attempts to muffle the
> speech of others to your imagination (assuming you have one).
>
> --
> Leslie Germaine
> Solo Practitioner
> Practicing Worldwide
> ________
> "Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the
> world, so they went to the polls on 11/04/2008 and removed all doubt."
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Brian Baker <brianlbaker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Leslie,
>
> Just out of curiosity, how exactly does the "1st Amendment" pertain
> here counselor? If you are actually an attorney? I have my doubts,
> of course.
>
> Brian
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Leslie Germaine wrote:
>
>> There are only two possible (and connected) reasons for Ronnie
>> objecting so strongly to anonymity on this listserv:
>>
>> 1) he wants to stifle posters, and,
>>
>> 2) he wants to stifle them by implicitly threatening to "report"
>> them to whoever he might deem appropriate.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Ronnie, this ain't Australia, and there IS a 1st Amendment
>> that governs.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Leslie Germaine
>> Solo Practitioner
>> Practicing Worldwide
>> ________
>> "Now, I'm not suggesting Obama intends to transform this nation
>> into 1950s-era Soviet tyranny or that he will possess the power to
>> do so. I'm suggesting Obama is praising and mainstreaming an
>> economic philosophy that has failed to produce a scintilla of
>> fairness or prosperity anywhere on Earth. Ever."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Butterfield, George <GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu
>> > wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>>
>> I do not see how knowing who the person is or how to contact them
>> has any bearing on the weight of what they write. I also do not see
>> why wanting to be anonymous is a bad thing. Folks may have their
>> reasons for it and I do not believe it appropriate for me to judge
>> their motives. So what if they want to be anonymous? We can read
>> what a person writes and conclude that old anonymous had something
>> relevant to say or not.
>>
>>
>> As to changing the FAQs, I don't really have an opinion on that.
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>>
>> George Butterfield
>>
>> Legal Reference Librarian
>>
>> Creighton Univ. School of Law Library
>>
>> 2500 California Plaza
>>
>> Omaha, NE 68178
>>
>> Office phone: 402-280-2243
>>
>> Fax: 402-280-2244
>>
>> email: GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Ronald Huttner
>> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:53 AM
>> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
>> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57608] RE: Purpose of Law-LIB
>>
>>
>> I agree with a lot of what you say, George.
>>
>> By all means evaluate each and every posting to the List on its
>> contents and its merits or lack thereof.
>>
>> However, the fact you may not happen to know a particular person on
>> the List who is nevertheless accurately and fully identifying
>> himself/herself in all of his/her postings, in no way justifies
>> your statement that that person "might as well be anonymous". There
>> is a vast and fundamental difference between being a person who
>> happens to be not known by another person, but is perfectly capable
>> of being known, contacted etc, and being a person who quite
>> deliberately chooses to makes it impossible for another person to
>> ever know or contact them, because he/she is hiding under a cloak
>> of anonymity.
>>
>>
>> It is also worth noting what is stated in the Law-Lib FAQs. See
>> item 6 under the heading "Suggestions For The Effective Use Of Law-
>> Lib" at http://home.olemiss.edu/~noe/llfaq.html
>>
>>
>> If anonymous postings to the List are in fact not prohibited and
>> there is no policy on them, as now clearly stated by Judy, then
>> should there not now be some amendments made to those FAQs ?
>>
>>
>> Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
>>
>> (Retired) Barrister and Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
>>
>> Melbourne
>>
>> Victoria
>>
>> Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/12/2008, at 3:19 AM, Butterfield, George wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Judy,
>>
>>
>> I believe that this list is fulfilling its purpose. Who has the
>> time to check out the identity of every person who posts? Who
>> cares? We teach our students about the weight of authority. The
>> same thing is true of the posts on this list. I weigh them and make
>> my own judgment. Whether it is by an anonymous poster or someone
>> that I don't know who may as well be anonymous, I consider what is
>> written and decide the value of it. Having an address doesn't make
>> the post more weighty. Knowing where the person works doesn't make
>> the post valuable. In fact, those things can skew a person's
>> vision. Nonsense is just that no matter where the person works. We
>> have to judge for ourselves based on the content of the post.
>>
>>
>> I believe that this list is set up as it should be. I wouldn't
>> change a thing. Keep up the good work.
>>
>>
>> George Butterfield
>>
>> Legal Reference Librarian
>>
>> Creighton Univ. School of Law Library
>>
>> 2500 California Plaza
>>
>> Omaha, NE 68178
>>
>> Office phone: 402-280-2243
>>
>> Fax: 402-280-2244
>>
>> email: GeorgeButterfield@creighton.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Janes, Judy
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:55 AM
>> To: David Clark; law-lib List
>> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57597] Purpose of Law-LIB
>>
>>
>> Dear Dave and Other Law-libbers: First of all, Dave, thank you for
>> your comments as well as everyone else's. I do want to make clear
>> that law-lib is an un-moderated list. There is no rule or policy
>> that "anonymous posters are not allowed". We all certainly hope
>> that people will identify themselves when they post, but there is
>> no one checking to make sure posts are signed or for that matter
>> that signatures are authentic. We rely on everyone's professional
>> judgment and goodwill to use respect when addressing the more than
>> 3000 subscribers all over the world. Perhaps some of you would
>> like to branch off and start another list with the rules and forum
>> you are suggesting. For the majority of law-libbers the list
>> serves its original purpose, that is, to provide a forum for law
>> librarians to discuss library and library-related issues. I hope we
>> can get back to business.
>>
>>
>> All the best, Judy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************
>>
>> Judy Janes, Interim Director
>> UC Davis Mabie Law Library
>> 400 Mrak Hall Dr.
>> Davis, Ca 95616
>> Phone 530 752-3328
>> FAX 530 752-8766
>> jcjanes@ucdavis.edu
>>
>>
>> *******************************
>>
>> UC Davis School of Law - 40 Years of Excellence, Leadership, and
>> Community
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu]
>> On Behalf Of David Clark
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:11 AM
>> To: Law-Lib
>> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57594] Re: Anonymous Posters on Lawlib
>>
>>
>> Although I have never met Ron Huttner (I'd like to visit Australia
>> some day, but I don't know if I'll ever get there), I like him and
>> consider him to be a friend (albeit a long-distance one).
>>
>>
>> I am not an apologist for Ron; you may judge him as you like, but
>> at least you know who he is and how to reach him. He does not
>> cloak his identity with on-line anonymity.
>>
>>
>> I do not take anything said on this list (or in life, for that
>> matter) personally, but when anonymous posters taunt and jeer and
>> perpetrate all manner of silliness; then that leads me to believe
>> (as I believe it would lead any reasonable and prudent person) that
>> their intent is merely to disrupt the list for their own
>> titillation, without having to answer to anyone for it.
>>
>>
>> I am given to understand that anonymous posters to this list are
>> not allowed. I believe that's a good policy.
>>
>>
>> Thanks! and Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas, and Happy Kwanzaa to
>> all...
>>
>>
>> Dave C.
>>
>>
>> David C. Clark, JD, MLIS
>> Law Librarian
>> Lightfoot, Franklin, & White, L.L.C.
>> The Clark Building, 400 20th St. N.
>> Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
>> 205-581-0768 / 205-380-9368 FAX
>> (Any opinions expressed herein are solely my own.)
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Brian L. Baker, JD, MLS
> Director of the Law Library
> & Professor of Law
> San Joaquin College of Law
> E: bbaker@sjcl.edu V: 559-323-2100 F: 559-323-5566
>
> The modern state appeals to morality, to religion, and to natural
> law as the ideological foundation of its existence. At the same
> time it is prepared to infringe any or all of these in the interest
> of self-preservation.
> J.M. Coetzee, "Diary of a Bad Year."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- Brian L. Baker, JD, MLS Director of the Law Library & Professor of Law San Joaquin College of Law E: bbaker@sjcl.edu V: 559-323-2100 F: 559-323-5566The modern state appeals to morality, to religion, and to natural law as the ideological foundation of its existence. At the same time it is prepared to infringe any or all of these in the interest of self- preservation. J.M. Coetzee, "Diary of a Bad Year."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 20 2008 - 20:22:44 PST