I think citing to a listserv discussion without confirming with the author is bad form unless one is simply crediting an idea that one is using that one first learned on the listserv. I think using an idea posted as a foil (or worse) without giving the author the opportunity to clarify and extend his or her remarks is particularly inappropriate.
But, for the most part, I don't think any of us are so important or what we talk about so valuable or brilliant that much harm could ever be done by such behavior. Pre-tenure folk may want to be a bit more circumspect, or those who are really concerned about their reputations among a tiny insignificant (for the most part) crowd, but for most of us, I don't think it matters one whit. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ “It’s all about you, using your own mind, without any method or schema, to restore order from chaos. And once you have, you can sit back and say, ‘Hey, the rest of my life may be a disaster, but at least I have a solution.’ ” Marcel Danesi, in an interview about his book, “The Puzzle Instinct: The Meaning of Puzzles in Human Life.” On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Doug Laycock has just posted this very interesting article to SSRN on > "Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars" that I recommend (though I would > certainly take issue with parts of it): > > http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304427 > > Doug's piece prompted me to wonder about a non-substantive point, however, > about which I thought an interjection might be in order: > > I was a bit surprised to see, in note 155 of his essay, that Doug cites a > couple of CONLAWPROF listserv posts of mine as evidence of a particular > argument about religious burdens that some have "suggested"--an argument that > Doug quite forthrightly condemns. FWIW, I don't think Doug has conveyed the > true nature of the argument I was making -- it was a limited argument > specifically in response to one of his -- but that's ok, because anyone who > cares at all about what I think (or thought one day last February) will go to > the posts themselves to see the context and the specific claims. And, to his > credit, Doug quite appropriately notes that in the second of the two posts, I > specifically disclaimed the argument that he uses the first of my posts to > illustrate. > > But I wanted to raise a broader question. Doug also cites to posts by Marci > Hamilton, and Jonathan Mallamud, from the same thread. All of these cites > raise a caution and a question. (The posts in question were on CONLAWPROF, > but the point is the same w/r/t ReligionLaw.) The caution: You should all > be aware, if you aren't already, that all that we post here is available > online for all the world to see . . . 'til the end of time! That hasn't > really deterred me at all from posting my views, even when they are tentative > and somewhat provocative or controversial -- and I hope the same is true for > the rest of you, too. (I just did a very quick Westlaw search for > "lists.ucla.edu," and found twelve cites to posts on these two listservs, > some of them laudatory (or giving the author credit for the first > articulation of a point): One post each to Tom Berg, Josh Chafetz, Doug > himself, Chris Lund, Chip Lupu, and Eugene Volokh; two cites to Mark Tushnet; > and four cites to yours truly (what does this say about me?!) For all I > know, some or all of the authors checked with the cited writers before citing > -- I don't recall in my own cases.) > > The question: What is the "etiquette," as it were, of citing listserv posts > and thereby attributing views to one another? My tentative view is that it's > ok -- after all, non-listserv members can and will do so, and I trust all of > you to try your best to fairly characterize what I and others have said, in > good faith. But I have a lingering concern that such a practice will deter > candid engagement on the listservs. I'm not sure that's entirely a bad > thing, even if it is occurring -- my general view is that one should always > assume that what we write will appear on the front page of the New York > Times, because that makes for more careful, more thoughtful writing. But of > course the listservs serve as a kind of real-time conversation, too; and it > would be a shame if people became reluctant to engage in a back-and-forth for > fear that their posts will later be cited. > > I sent these thoughts to Doug, who asked me to share with you that he > considered the question, and cited the posts because: > > I thought that 1) these posts are archived on a publicly available website, > 2) we had talked about that fact on the list from time to time, 3) the > contraceptive mandate was relatively new and some of these arguments had not > made it into published articles yet (at least that I knew about), and 4) I > was talking about a broad shift in attitudes and these less formal writings > tended to reveal what people really felt. > > What do others think? Should the informal, unpoliced norm be that we won't > cite one another's posts without at least giving the author a head's up . . . > or perhaps, even, allowing the author a veto? Would it depend on how the > cite is being used? > > What I'm most interested in is whether any of you would be chilled in an > unfortunate way from posting now that you know you might be cited. (As noted > above, I think some "chilling" is a good thing, insofar as it prompts more > thoughtful writing.) > > Thanks in advance, > > Marty > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
