Congratulations to Orin,
who not only has two of his articles cited in the Sixth Circuit e-mail privacy en banc, but who has the special privilege of having the dissent deride one of the citations:
Rather than address the facts and law cited by the panel’s opinion, the majority fails to cite one case dealing with electronic communications in the privacy context, instead relying on a single professor’s law review article.
Just goes to show how important that single professor's law review article must be.
In fact, counting these kinds of citations ... it's kind of like racking up notches in one's bedpost, isn't it?
But beware of counting up your importance like that. As I said earlier, overemphasizing what the academics think (who generally operate outside the practicalities/subtle realities of life) will not bode well for the law, I think.
It's just rather petty, counting up your citations like that to measure oneself, dontchathink? Hence, the bedpost comparison.
Not a slut-- a stud. Watch that.
But he's serious!
Kudos, Orin. I had some doubts at first, but now I'm convinced you could totally take Ilya.
Naturally, and (very) roughly analogous to why we're all familiar with the term "grassy knoll."
Volokh has been an uncritical cheerleader for the importance of academic scholarship of late.
The judges on the en banc panel thought it was important that is why they cited it. But if you have some reasons why you think it shouldn't be important, why don't you fill us in on them.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
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. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But 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.