I'm generally very pleased with our experimental enabling of comments. Nonetheless, I want to stress to people that we reserve the right to remove comments, in our own discretion (and the converse right to be busy enough with other things that we don't bother removing certain comments even if, given enough time, we might have).
Rudeness is obviously one cause for removal; a comment's being off-topic is another. But we may also remove comments in some other situations, for instance, when someone frequently posts things that are chiefly rants, fairly wild exaggeration, or invective (even without the use of major vulgarities).
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But I think that discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.
It's much easier to make up an alias (as I'm doing right now) and fire off a rant with zero accountability and freeride off of the readership of this blog.
I like what I think is Prof. Kerr's approach of not allowing comments except when they would be especially appropriate to the post.
This blog has set a good "tone" with the tenor of its posts and the gentle requests that any comments posted be respectful/nonobvious, but I think that, on any blog, it's only a matter of time before the comments degenerate into what has shown up on more recent threads.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people act as if commenting on a blog is one of their "constitutional rights". The general theme being - if you delete me, you are suppressing my right to free speech. That is actually pretty funny when you think about it! The effort to induce a guilt trip in order for their comment to continue to be displayed is certainly amusing.
I think comments can add great things to the original post when the commenter stays on topic. Sometimes they take off at a tangent other times you get great conversation. That's the way things work in life. BTW - Disagreeing with a post is not the same as being offensive.
Teresa: Gidget.
Prof. Volokh: Short of that blog agreement hold harmless clause you signed, situation altering utterances, and illegal speech, comments should not be edited. What you call, "chiefly rants, fairly wild exaggeration, or invective (even without the use of major vulgarities)." make this Internet the funniest, most entertaining place on earth. The art of letter writing has been revived in hilarious, quill dipping, historical irony. These missives from ordinary people are smarter, more graceful in turn of phrase and more surprising and compelling than those of Kipling writing from India. What lawyers may consider pleasant reverie is someone else's living nightmare.
There is no comedy on TV that is funnier. Your self-serious bloggers and commentators are funnier than Mel Brooks. This is why the audience is being sucked out of movies and TV, coming here. If the roughian public is not welcome, slap a password on the site, allow only civilized lawyers with verifiable Bar numbers. It will be fascinating.
What you deem civility is courtroom decorum, highly offensive to some, being from the Church. Lawyer style civility is Church style deviousness and hypocrisy, offending the First Amendment Establishment Clause (in court, not here, where you are free to be as phony as you desire). It is the civility of the weasel, quietly eating snake, business.
I am sincerely interested in whether you read the Hold Harmless Clause of this blog, before signing, your legal opinion of its status, and its effect on your exercising your First Amendment rights. Although, I chose to not blog to avoid it, I could not choose to not browse to avoid it. This is a subject worthy of at least passing mention, given your area of interest. With 10 million having signed the same agreement, shouldn't lawyers comment on it? My legal researchers, Mr. Google and Mr. Dogpile could not locate any such discussion. If the analysis takes a certain turn, I would like to discuss something in private.
That last sentence is not a situation altering utterance, mere riposte and repartee, by a fictional character.
(said in best Gidget voice while twirling my hair around my finger)