Header graphic for print
Real Lawyers Have Blogs On the topic of the law, firm marketing, social media, & baseball

Blogs are a discussion : Lawyers must defend others right to speak

Blogs are a discussion.

Bloggers publish posts on their blogs in response to what they've heard (read) elsewhere. They'll post comments on other blogs. Bloggers share their insight, disagree with other bloggers, make a point and do all the other things that took place in town forums of a couple hundred years ago. That's what makes blog discussion great. Heck, that's what makes this country great.

This town forum – free speech at work is what has drawn so many lawyers to blogs or blawgs, as some excellent lawyers have called theirs. This should come as no surprise. Almost half of the signers of The Declaration of Independence were lawyers. Over half of the signers of the United States Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, were lawyers.

Lawyers publishing blogs should be championing freedom of speech, not preventing speech they disagree with. Lawyers should champion causes on their blogs. They should openly challenge institutions, ideas and others. At the same time, lawyers must be prepared to be challenged themselves and be disagreed with.

However, there's at least a couple lawyers I know who use their blogs as bully pulpits who trounce free speech. Such lawyers only allow comments from people of their choosing. They'll only allow commenters which don't disagree too strongly with positions they've taken on their blogs. At the same time, they're given free access to openly comment on other lawyer blogs.

Sure, frivolous and spam comments have no place on blogs. But free speech must be championed by lawyers. If not us, then who?

Lawyers who have contributed so much to open and free discussion on the blogosphere should be lauded. Those lawyers who have chosen to ignore the heritage of our forefathers by trampling freedom of speech should correct their ways or be ignored.

  • http://www.deathandtaxesblog.com Joel S.

    Kevin-
    I don't know if you're talking about me and our interactions last August, but my defense is the one you mention in your own post: “frivolous and spam comments have no place on blogs.”
    I'm willing to allow comments that challenge me — recently I even linked to a post that accuses me of presenting strawman arguments. But I won't allow my blog to serve as an ad for your services, or allow you to respond to my legitimate questions with platitudes or corporate speak.
    You've got a major problem, Kevin — you and your company come off really poorly in Mr. Cowgill's posts. I've learned a lot from you about marketing (what to do and what NOT to do), but your inability or unwillingness to respond to criticism is making you look ridiculous — it's also really bad marketing. Are you going to respond to what your critics have said, or are you just going to attack them, or try to create a smokescreen?

  • http://www.internetcases.com Evan Brown

    Kevin: How do you answer Ben Cowgill's implication that LexBlog has engaged in infringement of Nolo's copyrighted material? Did Nolo permit the wholesale coyping of its materials on the Kansas family law blog? Sure, no one wants to see free speech trampled. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd say the First Amendment provides immunity for copyright infringement.

  • http://legalethics.info Ben Cowgll

    It seems from Joel's post that Mr. O'Keefe may be referring to me. But the truth is that I did permit Mr. O'Keefe to post a comment on my blog, Ben Cowgill on Legal Ethics, in response to my original post about LexBlog's business practices. In fact, my subsequent posts were a result of information which Mr. O'Keefe disclosed in that comment! So ther truth is that his comment, and my subsequent posts, are an example of what he says at the beginning of this post: “blogs are a discussion.”
    What I didn't allow Mr. O'Keefe to do was post a subsequent comment which contained nothing more than a libelous ad hominen attack against me. I deleted that comment and sent him an e-mail message encouraging him to post another comment addressing the issues, or better yet, post a reponse on his own blog (the one you're reading). At this point in time, however, he hasn't done either. Instead, he wrote this post about the First Amendment and apparently launched an e-mail campaign against me. Why won't he address the issues through a pubic discussion, if he really believes what he has written in this post?

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin O'Keefe

    Good question Evan. LexBlog has licensed the use of Nolo's content and we're proud as heck to have done so.
    Nolo's content, despite what Ben has said, is not all self help. The content written by practicing lawyers and edited by lawyers and judges is an excellent road map on the law for personal plight legal matters. I met with the staff and lawyers of Nolo for an entire day a few years ago and came away extremely impressed. They cared more about helping everyday people far more than the average lawyer in this country.
    For 99% of LexBlog's clients the Nolo content would not be appropriate. The target audience for those lawyers is not dealing with personal plight matters such as divorce, criminal defense, real estate, plaintiff's etc.
    Lawyers who do not sit across the desk of victims of domestic abuse, wrongful termination, and sexual harassment should tread carefully when jumping on lawyers who care enough to get such victims free helpful information via the Internet.

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin O'Keefe

    Joel, LexBlog has achieved the success it has because we've acted ethically, honestly and with integrity at all times. That includes comments on others' blogs.
    As far as Ben Cowgill, in my opinion and without implying he did anything unethical or wrong, he got caught with his pants down two years ago doing what other lawyers would not do. To do this day I have not heard of other lawyers picking a competitor's name at search engines' sponsored link programs so that a sponsored link with the lawyer's Web site would show up when the competitor's name was searched for. A reporter from his home state called me on it and I responded, like others, in a way that did not hold Ben in good light.
    He has carried a personal grudge for these two years and told me last week he would sully my reputation and has attempted to do so this week with a series of posts and comments on his blogs which are filled with half truths and ill founded innuendoes.
    Befitting his style, Ben only allows comments to his liking. Writting about Ben in posts at my blog only draws attention to a small minded lawyer who does not deserve it.

  • http://legalethics.info Ben Cowgill

    Mr. O'Keefe calls me a “small minded lawyer” who “does not deserve” his attention.
    Readers should know that other commentators do not share that opinion. In fact, my legal ethics blog is:
    . . . “a fantastic resource,” according to Lisa Stone of the
    Law.com Blog Network    ;. . . “a gold mine of electronic sources on legal ethics and law practice issues,” according to the Underwood Law Library at Southern Methodist University;. . . listed as one of the strongest links for legal ethics research in
    Law Practice Today    , the on-line magazine of the ABA Law Practice Management Section;. . . “my favorite web site on legal ethics,” according to Leonard Bucklin, editor of NeoEthics;. . . “the classiest” of Kentucky's law-related weblogs, according to Michael Stevens, Senior Editor of The Kentucky Law Blog;. . . a weblog which “shows a love of writing and reflection, along with legal ethics,” according to David Giacalone of
    EthicalEsq    ;. . . one of two legal ethics blogs that were selected for “Sixty Sites in Sixty Minutes” at ABA TechShow 2005; and. . . recognized as an on-line legal ethics resource by both the
    ABA Center for Professional Responsibility     and the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.

  • http://legalethics.info Ben Cowgill

    Please permit me to respond briefly to Evan Shaeffer's comment.Evan, if you will read my post again, you will see that I did not imply that LexBlog is using Nolo's copyrighted material without permission. Yes, I asked the question, but I also indicated, in each of two places, that LexBlog had “surely” obtained the necessary license from Nolo.As I indicated in my post and also in my comments to the same post, the issue is not merely whether LexBlog has permission to use the material from Nolo. From the perspective of legal ethics, the issue is also whether the third-party authorship of the material is adequately disclosed on the blog itself to avoid giving the visitor the misleading impression that the material was authored by the blogger.

  • http://www.legalunderground.com Evan Schaeffer

    Ben: You were responding to Evan Brown's comment, not mine (Evan Schaeffer). I didn't comment on this thread until now.
    Evan Brown is a nice guy–but he's a different guy too!

  • http://legalethics.info Ben Cowgill

    Thanks Evan (Schaeffer, that is). I realized my error as soon as I hit the enter key. I'm sure it has happened to you before, since you are The Two Evans of Blawging. I hav already apologized to Evan II.

  • Abby

    Right on. My dad is a lawyer too. I think lawyers rock!!!!

  • Rob

    I couldn't agree more with your post. I recently made a brief comment on the Uncivil Litigator blog, on the topic of the state of civil liberties in the US and Canada. The host's first response was to accuse me of relying on “gut feeling”, implying that I knew nothing about the issue. I tried to defend myself by responding to each of the substantive points he made against me, informing him that I am in fact a Canadian litigator, practicing civil liberties law. He chose not to post my comment . The ironic thing is that the topic was FREE SPEECH, including his assertion that truth will win in the free marketplace of ideas!

  • http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq david giacalone

    I've been trying to send you a Trackback ping, Kevin. The post is “o” for oversight.
    Disagreement on issues or facts is not a good enough reason to refuse a Comment. However, I could imagine a commentor being so nasty or vulgar, that the owner of a site might decide the Comment needs to be edited. I know you know the difference between government and personal restrictions on speech.