IMAO, formerly Frank J.'s private preserve, has become a group blog (announcement here). The e-mail informed me that, "IMAO will surely now storm to the top of the blogosphere, leaving many bodies in its wake. Pity IMAO's enemies."

Also, the e-mail included a note: "Your link to IMAO has the site's name spelled wrong (it's 'IMAO' not 'Scrappleface'). Also, the URL is all wrong."

I blogged about this prosecution earlier this week; my view was that the accused simply wasn't guilty of a crime under New Mexico law, at least under that portion of New Mexico law -- distribution to minors or display to minors of obscene-as-to-minors materials -- that was being discussed.

Ruth Waytz, the wife of the artist who drew the allegedly obscene-as-to-minors sticker, now reports:

Dean Young's case was dismissed this morning, but the judge did so Without Prejudice, which means the NM authorities are still free to file other charges against him in the future. Not sure what those other charges might be . . . .

Maybe Young did something else that actually was a crime, but my sense is that he's off the hook for the sticker.

A while back, I got several messages from readers attributing this quote to Mark Twain. I'm always skeptical of such attributions, since Twain -- plus a few other people, such as Winston Churchill, Dorothy Parker, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Ambrose Bierce, Benjamin Disraeli, and H.L. Mencken -- seem to be magnets for loose quotations. If you're not sure of the source, credit Twain, and that'll be plausible enough. So I asked the indispensable UCLA Law School research library to track it down. (Yes, I can legitimately do that, since I plan on using the quote in my law review article.)

Here's what seems to be the scoop, courtesy of Jenny Lentz: The quote has indeed been often attributed to Mark Twain, but there doesn't seem to be much proof that he indeed said it. The most detailed source she could find was this note in an article by Lawrence P. Wilkins in 28 Indiana Law Review 135 (1995):

[The quote was a]ttributed [to mark Twain] by Allen D. Boyer in Activist Shareholders, Corporate Directors, and Institutional Investment: Some Lessons from the Robber Barons, 50 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 977, 977 (1993), who saw the attribution in ROBERT SOBEL, PANIC ON WALL STREET 431 (1988). Professor Sobel saw the attribution some time ago in an editorial column in the New York Times, the author of which he cannot recall. He has consulted with several Twain scholars across the country, and all agree that the quotation sounds very much like something Twain would say, but none seems able to find the actual words in Twain's papers. Telephone conversations with Allen D. Boyer and Robert Sobel, March 3, 1995 and March 7, 1995. It is somewhat ironic that this quotation cannot be definitively traced to Twain, whose energies were spent in great measure to protect his rights of authorship. . . .

In any case, I can still easily use the quote, just giving it as "Attributed to Mark Twain." But it's worth noting that there's some uncertainty about it. If anyone can resolve this uncertainty by a specific pointer to a written work by Twain -- and not just by a pointer to someone who has attributed the quote to Twain -- please let me know.

I thought about this while reading to Benjamin, but of course great minds think alike.

Ted Frank (OverLawyered) reports:

Michael J. Zwebner, the CEO of penny-stock holding company Universal Communication Systems, is unhappy that he's being flamed on the RagingBull.com message board, run by Lycos. He may have a legitimate beef to some extent. . . .

[But] Zwebner's litigation methods . . .are questionable. He's filed five lawsuits in federal court in Miami, against anonymous posters, against Lycos (for, among other things, "trademark violations" for naming a message board after the ticker symbol UCSY), and even a couple of purported class actions. He's especially upset at one anonymous poster, who has the especially credible username of Wolfblitzzer0 [sic].

So, Zwebner has sued . . . CNN and the real-life Wolf Blitzer! It seems, according to Zwebner's view of the world, that Blitzer is supposed to be on the lookout for anonymous posters using similar names, and should be held liable for such posters' postings when he fails to police the use of such usernames. . . .

Appalling. First, I doubt that Blitzer even had a legal right to stop Wolfblitzzer0 from his posts; unless the posts were commercial advertising (which I doubt), Blitzer wouldn't have a right of publicity or trademark claim against Wolfblitzzer0. And I doubt Blitzer would have a libel claim (on the theory that Wolfblitzzer0 is hurting Blitzer's reputation by posting things under his name) because few readers would really think that the poster is Wolf Blitzer.

But second, Blitzer certainly has no legal duty to spend his time, money, and effort litigating over every schmoe's misuse of his name -- even if he had a legal right to stop such misuses -- especially when readers would realize that the poster isn't the real Blitzer. (Under the doctrine of "apparent authority," A may sometimes end up bound by contracts that B made on his behalf, when reasonable observers would assume that B actually has the authority to act for A; but that surely isn't the case here.)

Sounds like a sure loser of a case to me, perhaps even sanctionable (though that's a tougher call).

I thought I'd blogged Eric's views on this when he first posted them, but now I realize I hadn't. In any case, they start here, but he has a lot more follow-up. Max Boot's piece, which I linked to below, properly gives Eric credit.

Yesterday the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — aka the UN global warming treaty — came into effect. This became a done deal after Russia agreed to ratify the agreement. By its terms, Kyoto enters into force on the 90th day after at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 ratify the agreement.

Contrary to some claims, the U.S. never "withdrew" from Kyoto the way it withdrew from the International Criminal Court. The U.S. remains a party. Nonetheless, this nation is not bound by its terms because the U.S. has not ratified it. Most other developed nations have ratified Kyoto, however, and are bound by its terms — at least in theory. Many of Kyoto's signatories in Europe are well behind their emission reduction goals, and developing nations are not required to reduce their emissions at all. As Julian Ku notes at Opinio Juris, many Kyoto signatories are heading in the "wrong direction."

The Bush Administration has been the subject of substantial criticism for refusing to endorse Kyoto. But is this criticism warranted? The Clinton Administration signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution 95-0, unanimously rejecting the substance of the agreement. Even some who believe global warming is a pressing policy concern doubt Kyoto represents a responsible strategy to address climate change concerns.

The underlying assumption of much anti-Bush Kyoto commentary is that the Bush Administration is doing nothing on the issue. Even if one sets aside the tens of millions the administration has spent on climate-related research and technology R&D on the assumption that such federal projects rarely bear fruit, the charge that the Administration is sitting on its hands rings hollow. As Gregg Easterbrook notes in The New Republic, the Administration's "Methane to Markets" initiative represents a substantial step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (For non-TNR-subscribers, Julian Ku summarizes the article here.) While few have noticed this program, it could do as much to reduce the threat of global warming as Kyoto as methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Despite its promise, I would not expect too many environmental activists to cheer "Methane to Markets." First, as we have seen in other contexts (see here and here), the major environmental groups are loathe to give a conservative Republican administration much credit for any environmental initiatives. Second, although "Methane to Markets" could bear fruit, it does not require stringent regulations of coal-fired power plants, limitations on fossil fuels, or controls on SUVs. Third, as Ku suggests, there is often a preference for grand international agreements (like Kyoto) over less-formal — but not necessarily less-effective — agreements like "Methane to Markets." It will be interesting to see whether this agreement is a one-shot deal, or a harbringer of more to come.

I just noticed that a university other than UC was smart enough to snag uc.edu before UC did. Likewise, I've long noticed that one particular school is law.edu. If anyone has other examples of universities that have such domain names -- names that do match the school's name or field, but that seem to reflect the school's wisdom in being first to snag a name that other more prominent schools might have also wanted -- please leave them in the comments.

Max Boot (not a particularly politically correct fellow himself, writing in the not very politically correct Weekly Standard) criticizes it forcefully and in detail.

Boot also points out the error in the New York Times Book Review's characterization of the book as a "neocon retelling of this nation's back story," faults Regnery, Woods' publisher, and warns conservative consumers: "Conservatives looking to inoculate themselves or their children from liberal indoctrination would be well advised to steer clear of Woods's corrosive cornucopia of canards."

First alcohol, now coffee (though unfortunately maybe decaf is best).

Of course, "That difference may, however, be due to differences in lifestyle, the researchers commented, suggesting that drinkers of decaffeinated coffee might be more health-conscious overall." But, hey, I know how to ignore scientific disclaimers just as well as the next guy.

It turns out that Chris Cooper -- the artist who created that sticker that a New Mexico D.A. says is obscene-as-to-minors -- is a regular reader of this blog (which I hadn't known). He e-mails:

As the artist who created the artwork in question, I'm more than a little interested in this case, and I'm very worried that the person in question might get thrown in the klink for having a sticker on his car. That just doesn't seem like something that should happen in the USA. I hope that your analysis of the statute is one that is shared by the court.

An unsurprising reaction, of course, but I figured that since I had something straight from the horse's mouth, I'd pass it along.

Some people asked us how we split our (quite modest) income from this blog. I thought for a while about this. One obvious answer was to pay by the post, but there are obvious bad incentives there. (I doubt that these incentives would affect our judgments consciously, but these things sometimes have a way of subconsciously influencing even well-intentioned people. And I worried about bad incentives for me as much as the bad incentives for others.)

Another was to pay by the total word count, but I don't want people to fall into a "we're getting paid by the word" mentality. We law professors are loquacious enough as it is; no need to encourage us. My sense was that longer posts did tend to be more valuable to readers, up to a certain word count, and excluding block quotes, but not in proportion to their length. I also thought about factoring in the total number of links to our posts, but I decided against this, chiefly because most of our visitors don't come through links to specific posts, and because links end up being hard to measure.

So the formula, which we cobloggers agreed to, is this (and thanks very much to Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs for implementing the code that supports this): Each person is paid in proportion to the sum of the square roots of their post lengths, with the proviso that the post lengths are in words, exclude blockquoted text, and are capped at 900 words (so one gets no extra credit for words past 900).

My favorite response to this was Dave Kopel's:

Most of all, I'm thrilled to be paid by a system involving the sum of square roots. Maybe I can use the money to buy a slide rule, a pocket protector, and some more black socks.

Yes, the geek chic factor of a sum-of-the-square-roots formula is indeed one of the reasons I chose it . . . .

By the way, no need to suggest alternative schemes; it took us enough time to settle on this one that I doubt we'll reconsider it any time soon.

A New York Times correction from today:

The Keeping Score column in SportsSunday on Jan. 23, about a mathematical formula for projecting the winner of the Super Bowl, misstated the application of the Pythagorean theorem, which the formula resembles. The theorem determines the length of the third side of a right triangle when the length of the two other sides is known; it is not used to determine the sum of the angles in a right triangle.

Thanks to Power Line and InstaPundit for the pointer.

UPDATE: Reader Paul Johnson passes along this Scarecrow line from Wizard of Oz:

The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh joy! Rapture! I got a brain! How can I ever thank you enough?

(Note to the New York Times-like among us, or at least those who are NYT-like in this way: The sum of the squares of the two perpendicular sides of a right triangle equals to the square of the remaining side. Remember that the Wizard really didn't improve the Scarecrow's intelligence.)

The Thank You, Hollywood, for helping re-elect President Bush billboard made me wonder: Why is it that so many popular and otherwise appealing actors come across so badly -- silly, strident, vacuous, self-important, and the like -- when they talk politics?

Some might say that it's because the actors are silly, strident, vacuous, and self-important. But even if that's right (and I imagine it's true for some and not for others), so what? It's an actor's job to act like someone they're not -- that's what they do for a living. You're not actually a professional baseball player, or an assassin, or the President; but you try to credibly pretend that you are one. Likewise, you may be a pompous ass rather than a thoughtful, empathetic, and trustworthy commentator. But if you're a good actor, you should be able to play thoughtful, empathetic, and trustworthy.

So why don't the actors just treat this as a role? You've got a new gig, which requires a bit of improvising. Your character is someone people trust and like. He's passionate but reasonable, serious but funny, compassionate but hard-headed. He's the guy next door, who's smart enough that his neighbors trust him, but not so full of his smarts that his neighbors loathe him. Your goal is to make the filmgoers like you, and thus like what you say. (Want more incentive? Pretend you're trying to get the Best Actor in a Politically Persuasive Role Oscar. Can't improvise? Heck, don't you know any screenwriters? Have them script some lines for you.)

Does the character call the President dirty names, even when he dislikes him? Does he fail to grasp how patriotic his neighbors are? (Not your real Hollywood neighbors, dummy, the neighbors of the character you're playing.) Does he threaten to move out of the country if the wrong guy gets elected? Seriously, if you're a good actor, shouldn't the answers -- and thus the lines you improvise for yourself -- be obvious?

Heck, if all this doesn't work, here's one for you. Remember Ronald Reagan? Think of him as a great actor? No? Think you could out-act him in your sleep? Think he was evil and hateful, and managed to dupe people into not seeing it? (Never mind that he wasn't, I'll bet you think he was.) Then why could he play amiable, decent, and trustworthy -- even to millions of people who disagreed with him on many things -- and you can't?

An excerpt:

My generation turned against authority in a huge way. And, it must be said, with some justification. Watergate, Vietnam, and so on all called into question the legitimacy of most authority figures. As boomers entered the media, the [mainstream media] evolved from bastions — even defenders — of authority into authority's chief public critic. Woodward and Bernstein defined the wet dreams of every subsequent journalist — to take down authority figures. And so it has been ever since, with every minor scandal being elevated into "[fill in the blank]-gate."

But now this particular pigeon has come home to roost. . . . [T]he media has reaped what it sowed. The media legitimated and perpetuated the Sixties' radicals critique of authority. In doing so, however, it sowed the seeds of its own loss of authority. Since some of those seeds turned out to be dragons' teeth, the media is now reaping the whirlwind. . . .

Read the ">whole post for more.

The New York Times reports, in an article about the Eason Jordan resignation from CNN and bloggers:

[S]ome in the traditional media are growing alarmed as they watch careers being destroyed by what they see as the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue.

Steve Lovelady, a former editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Wall Street Journal and now managing editor of CJR Daily, the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review, has been among the most outspoken.

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail," he lamented online after Mr. Jordan's resignation. He said that Mr. Jordan cared deeply about the reporters he had sent into battle and was "haunted by the fact that not all of them came back."

Now I realize that "lynch mob" is figurative, and hyperbole at that. Still, figurative references and analogies (even hyperbolic ones) only make sense to the extent that the analogy is apt -- to the extent that the figurative usage, while literally false, reflects a deeper truth.

The trouble is that here the analogy is extremely weak. What's wrong with lynch mobs? It's that the mob itself has the power to kill. They could be completely wrong, and entirely unpersuasive to reasonable people or to the rest of the public. Yet by their physical power, they can impose their will without regard to the law.

But bloggers, or critics generally, have power only to the extent that they are persuasive. Jordan's resignation didn't come because he was afraid that bloggers will fire him. They can't fire him. I assume that to the extent the bloggers' speech led him to resign, it did so by persuading the public that he wasn't trustworthy.

So Jordan's critics (bloggers or not) aren't a lynch mob: If they're a mob, they're at most a "persuasion mob." What's more, since they're generally a very small group, they're really a "persuasion bunch."

Maybe if a persuasion bunch tries to persuade people by using factual falsehoods, they could be faulted on those grounds (though that too has little to do with lynch mobs). But I've seen no evidence that their criticisms were factually unfounded, or that Jordan quit because of any factual errors in the criticisms. (Plus presumably releasing the video of the panel would have been the best way to fight the factual errors.)

We should love persuasion bunches, who operate through peaceful persuasion, while hating lynch mobs, who operate through violence and coercion. What's more, journalists -- to the extent that they love the First Amendment's premise that broad public debate helps discover the truth, and improve society -- ought to love persuasion bunches, too. When the only power you wield is the power to speak, and persuade others through the force of your arguments (and not through the force of your guns, clubs, or fists), that's just fine. Come to think of it, isn't that the power that opinion journalists themselves wield?

In any of event, figurative usages and analogies are good when they help us engage in clear thinking. Unsound analogies lead to muddled thinking -- and, come to think of it, they usually flow from muddled thinking, too.

A law-blogger writes me:

In [Academic Legal Writing] you stress that authors should tell people about their articles. Here's a funny story about a failure to do so.

I read [an article in a recent issue of a law journal]. I liked it and linked to it -- and I e-mailed the author to tell him.

Turns out he reads my blogs, and even relied on them for some research (I suspected as much) and was very pleased I linked to his article.

The issue, of course, is why he didn't e-mail me a link to his article? . . . [L]egal bloggers are about the best people to let know about new articles.

I don't think I'm a big player or anything, but it's odd that someone who reads my blogs and writes an article related to their subject matter wouldn't tip me off. (I also noticed that the article has been viewed by a substantially larger number of people since I linked to it.)

I think the answer is that lawyers just don't know much about marketing their legal articles, it seems.

Great advice -- and a great admonition to me, since the Publicizing chapter in my book doesn't mention publicizing to law bloggers. Sounds like I have a thing or two to learn about marketing, even though I'm a law blogger myself, and someone who's interested (and moderately experienced) in promoting ideas. D'oh.

In any event, this tip is going into the Third Edition, when (if) it gets produced, but in the meantime, I place it here. Many thanks to my correspondent for pointing it out.

The Clovis (New Mexico) News Journal reports:

Stickers on a Clovis man's car portray cartoon images of bare-breasted female devils in sexually compromising positions. [See here for an image of what seems likely to be the sticker.-EV] And the images have caught the attention of Clovis police.

Officials have charged 31-year-old Dean Young, the owner of a yellow Ford Focus displaying the images, with distribution of sexually oriented materials to minors. The charge is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum punishment of 364 days in jail and $1,000 fine. Young is scheduled to appear in magistrate court on the charges in the next few weeks. . . .

[State prosecutor Chris] Chandler said the case came to light after the young son of Clovis police Detective Kirk Roberts saw the stickers. Roberts saw his son staring at the images during a family outing to an area restaurant, where Young works as a waiter, Chandler said.

Young said he would have removed the stickers if Roberts hadn't threatened to charge him with a felony. He said Roberts told him to remove the stickers, and came back to the restaurant two weeks later. When they weren't removed, police issued the citation to Young, who said Roberts is the first person to approach him with concerns over the stickers. . . .

(Matt Welch (at Reason's Hit & Run) also reports on this.)

Now it turns out that lower courts have mostly upheld against First Amendment challenge fairly narrowly crafted restrictions on the public display, in places where minors may be present, of sexually themed material that's constitutionally protected for adults but that is deemed unsuitable for minors. (See here for citations to some cases.) It's hard to tell which material would be restrictable this way, since the standard is so vague, and since there have been few prosecutions under such statutes and thus little clarification; so it's not clear whether the sticker qualifies. For whatever it's worth, here's the New Mexico standard, which is similar to the one lower courts have generally upheld:

"[H]armful to minors" means that quality of any description of representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sado-masochistic abuse, when it: (1) predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors; and (2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and (3) is utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.

("Harmful to minors" is the legal label for this; there doesn't have to be proof that it's actually likely to cause psychological harm.)

But this post isn't about the First Amendment issue, which isn't involved here. Under current First Amendment rules, states can bar such material, and while I think there are problems with this — chiefly related to the vagueness of the law — I don't get too worked up about it.

However, as best I can tell, New Mexico hasn't outlawed what this guy did. The relevant part of the New Mexico statutes (30-37-2) expressly bars (1) "sell[ing], deliver[ing], distribut[ing], display[ing] for sale or provid[ing] to a minor" such material, (2) exhibiting movies or shows containing such material to a minor, (3) disseminating such material to a minor using a computer, or (4) displaying in an outdoors movie theater a movie containing unclothed sexual conduct, if a minor can see it without taking extraordinary measures or having a ticket (in the latter case, presumably the minor would be accompanied by a parent). The statute does not outlaw noncommercial display of such material, which is what Dean Young seems to have done.

The prosecutor's theory is that Young was distributing the material to a minor by displaying it. But that's not the way the term "distributing" is usually meant; would we say that a billboard, a T-shirt, or a sign is being "distributed" to viewers? And on top of that, the statute says "sell[ing], deliver[ing], distribut[ing], display[ing] for sale or provid[ing] to a minor" — the inclusion of "display for sale" as a separate item suggests that display not for sale is not covered.

So maybe there oughtta be a law — but it looks like there isn't one. If anyone who knows New Mexico law can point out errors in my analysis, please let me know. But that's my tentative thinking on this.

A reader writes:

Your "Law Review Lara" series is well-timed for me. I am currently a "staffer" on law review -- cite checking and finishing up a comment (2L). At my school, running for a board position (a 3L position) is optional. . . . My quandary is this: What is the career benefit of a "high board" position?

After following the LR debates and being a staffer, I am not sure I see any. Or at least see any for the majority of us at non-Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. schools that have no hope of a legal-academic career. Wouldn't a law student be better off getting a job during their third year [externing] for a judge or in [some other] externship? Or doing anything that teaches them about how to be a lawyer rather than doing administrative work for journals that don't appear to be that well put together in the first place.

If you think board positions are valuable, a related question: Is any board position worth taking? There seems to be hierarchy within everything in law and law reviews are no exception. Are regular assistant editor positions viewed differently than editor-in-chief, etc. positions?

These are hard questions, for two reasons. First, there's been little or no systematic study of what benefits one gets from a "high board" position; so everyone's opinion is based on her own experience, which may be highly unrepresentative. (Plus, Law Review Lara was a mid-board assistant managing editor, in charge of proofreading, bluebooking, and coordinating cite-checking; naturally, she thinks this is fascinating and fantastically useful stuff.) Second, as the reader points out, the question is one of opportunity costs: Even if a high board position gives one some advantages, would your time be better spent on something else?

With that, a few tentative thoughts:

1. Law firms are desperate for some tips about how good a lawyer you'll be, so even fine gradations in a hierarchy tend to make a difference to them. They don't care that being a Chief Articles Editor has made you a much better lawyer; but they suspect that it means you were smarter -- or harder-working or more politically savvy, all important factors for a young lawyer -- than the average person who doesn't have that credential. This may or many not apply to specialty journals, which have a reputation as being not terribly selective; but it's likely true for high editorial board positions (Editor-in-Chief, one of the department chiefs, and to a lesser extent one of the department Indians) on the school's main journal.

2. Being on the law review board actually does give you practice in skills that are important for lawyers. Whether you primarily do editing, proofreading, articles selection, or supervision of student Notes, you'll be exposed to a lot of written work, which you'll have to critique or improve. Writing is one of the most important skills a lawyer needs, and we don't teach it nearly enough in law school; editing is the key to good writing; and editing others' work helps you learn how to better edit your own. Being an articles selection editor is probably the least useful here, but the compensation is that you'll then be exposed to lots of novel ideas on a variety of topics, and some of them may well come in handy in the future. (Warning: Others are just plain wrong, and may deceive you more than helping you.)

3. The law review is an extended, cooperative task, and participating in it -- especially as managers, which the editors-in-chief and the department chiefs are -- is important training in dealing with people (and in particular future lawyers). It's not quite like working in a law firm (the money isn't as good, for instance), but it does involve working with lawyers, being responsible for others' work, acting responsibly with your own work, and other things that do help prepare you for the working world. If you haven't had much work experience of that sort, being on a law review board can be useful.

All this having been said, "making law review" -- getting on the journal in the first place, and then working on it for a year as a staffer -- is probably the more important credential than getting a high editorial board position. And, as with many other things, if you expect to dislike the task, don't do it unless you think it will be really helpful. Life is too short to work for nothing on something that leaves you cold and that likely will be at best a moderately helpful credential. But at the same time don't exaggerate the value of, for instance, being a judicial extern during law school; that could be fun, but it's not a terribly helpful credential either. (Being a judicial clerk after law school is a good credential, but being an extern for a semester during law school generally isn't.)

Finally, to answer the last question: The credential value, from highest to lowest, tends to be Editor-in-Chief, department head (Chief Articles Editor, Chief Notes Editor, Chief Managing Editor or Executive Editor), then positions in the departments (Articles Editor, Notes Editor, Book Review Editor, and the like), then the unnamed editorial positions. This is a rough cut, and note that the board structure -- and particularly the position names -- vary from school to school.

In any event, Lara wishes she could have given you a more definite answer; but this is the best she's got. Lara is enabling comments so that others who are knowledgeable -- especially people who are practicing lawyers and are thus on the hiring side -- can speak to this question. (Recall that the question is the educational and credential value of having a high editorial board position, or any editorial board position when the board year is optional, not of being on law review in the first place.)

The remarkable thing about attempts to outlaw anti-gay speech (see the post about Sweden) is that only a few decades ago the orthodox belief throughout much of the West was that homosexuality was so awful that it needed to be outlawed. On this basis, governments (at least in the U.S.) tried to enforce the then-existing orthodoxy by suppressing pro-homosexuality speech. Now, the dominant view, which I share, is that the past perspective was mistaken. And now some governments are trying to enforce the now-existing orthodoxy by suppressing anti-homosexuality speech.

Yet shouldn't our experience of throwing away the formerly unchallenged verities of the past lead us to a bit more skepticism? What if today's elite majority view is wrong: What if it turns out that homosexuality is indeed morally reprehensible, bad for society, or both? I realize that there are good reasons to protect speech even if one is sure that it's mistaken. But if experience suggests that certainties are oftenmistaken, isn't that all the more reason to let speech be protected? And shouldn't the vast changes in formerly orthodox social attitudes over the past half century -- attitudes towards non-whites, towards women, towards gays, and so on -- remind us that a lot less is morally certain than the majority might think?

All this brings us back to Justice Holmes' words in Abrams v. United States (1919), which strike me as right even today:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country...

Naturally, the Swedes have their own Constitution; but the principle that Holmes articulated is suitable, I think, ought to be adopted in constitutions more generally.

A reader e-mailed to ask how he could put a tip in our tip jar, and I realized that we didn't have one. While we were entirely noncommercial, income would have just caused hassles (I'm thinking blood-covered knives around the monthly Volokh Co-Bloggers Campfire); but now that we've started having ads, shifted to a commercial service provider, and worked out a way of splitting the loot, I thought we might as well make it easy for people to give to us if they want to.

Naturally, you shouldn't feel remotely obligated to. If you're in California or Virginia, you might conclude that you're giving to us enough already by helping pay the UCLA or GMU cobloggers' salary with your tax money. Plus, we're tickled pink that you read us in the first place — your eyeballs are present enough for us.

Nonetheless, if you do want to hit the tip jar, we would naturally be pleased and grateful. Just click on the Amazon Honor System graphic in our right sidebar.

"Latest Bin Laden Videotape Wishes America 'A Crappy Valentine's Day'":

Bin Laden called for "romantic humiliation for all Americans of courting and betrothal age."

"Allah willing, embarrassment and tearful rejection shall rule this day," bin Laden said. "Paper hearts shall be rent and trod upon, and dreams of love delivered stillborn. Body language shall be misinterpreted, crushes unrequited, and sincere expressions of affection mocked. Invitations to dinner will be rejected, just as Americans have rejected Allah, the one true God." . . .

Bin Laden added: "May your special Valentine's Day dinner be spent at an overrated restaurant that impoverishes your purse and leaves your stomach churning with indigestible Western cuisine."

Bin Laden did not overlook the innocuous custom of giving stuffed animals as gifts.

"The teddy bear that holds the 'I love you' heart does not love you at all," Bin Laden said. "It is an unliving, unholy thing filled only with stuffing. Just as the Western infidel is not bestowed with the blessings of Allah, so shall he go unloved by the false bear." . . .

Read the whole thing, as they say.