A reader doesn’t like us very much:
Rump, are you seriously saying that just b/c your readership hasn't dropped means people like you censoring (call it what it is) their blogs, or waiting for it to pass the Standards Board before its available for public consumption? YOU ARE A MONOPOLY. No one else has a Dade Criminal Court Blog. If Fpl sucks, what can I do? Start my own electric Co? I'm stuck with their service. Similar thing here. No one is realistically going to put in the time to make another blog on the same shit you have. We only have you. Why take away the fun of real-time quotes b/c once a month some asshole writes cruel shit? Why do believe its your responsibility to PREVIEW quotes for publication? What is wrong with a disclaimer( in bold print if you wish)? No more back and forth b/t bloggers. Now, we'll have to wait for you to OK our speech. Yes, its your blog, and its private, and you can do whatever you please with it, including censoring it or ending it. But it just seems, with all due respect to all your hard work, that you fell a little too easily into a kind of Power Trip. You decide what other lawyers (mostly) are allowed to say on a blog that is supposedly an open forum. Can't be open and "moderated" at the same time. No matter how you try to spin it, it just can't be. Go with freedom. Leave the dark forces of control and regulation alone. They don't suit you. There's always a "good reason" to limit speech (and other freedoms) in the minds of those who naturally take a collectivist approach. Hate to see you cross over.
Rumpole responds: We respect your point of view, but point out that you are incorrect in one important point:
We do not censor what people say, or decide what attorneys can or can’t post. Posts that are mean to us, our friends, or Judges we like, are faithfully posted. We have a few simple rules: 1) No posting of personal information: home address, children names, etc. 2) No posting of personal and private matters that do not affect a public office. That means if an attorney is cheating on her husband with her secretary, we do not post that.
For all the chatter and recriminations, we note that the one very sticky wicket that has never been discussed is this scenario: Where a Judge is having a relationship with an attorney who appears before the Judge, and the attorney for the other side makes the disclosure. That would trouble us.
Here is the point: there is apparently a lot of anger out there. People use the blog to just mercilessly attack other people. People criticize Brian Tannebaum for speaking to the Herald on the death of Judge Leyte-Vidal. What was he supposed to do?
“When contacted for a quote about the late Judge, Brian Tannebaum, president of the Miami Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense attorneys refused comment.”
How stupid would that be?
Be that as it may, while this blog has become a conduit for some people’s frustration and anger, their anger is not our anger. We are pretty happy go lucky. Give us a jury, a defense, and a paying client, and our week is made. Give us a Judge who does something stupid like rule that the issue of whether a statement is voluntary is a jury question (watch for the upcoming post, “A is for….”) and we delight in rubbing that Judge’s nose in their ….ummm…ruling.
But to make this blog a vehicle for trashing people for no reason, and trashing them in an extremely vicious and nasty way is not something we choose to be a part of. This very week, without even being buried, some lowlife wrote a post about Judge Leyete-Vidal and included a very hurtful insinuation. Sorry, but even if it was true, we don’t play with that kind of hate.
Go start the “MetroJusticeIhateeveryone.blog” and have fun.
But your allegation that we decide who can post, and what they can say, is simply not true. Ask around and see if anyone was "censored."
If we are in the marketplace for readers, then we rely on our quick wit, our ability to play with words, and our ability to write an enjoyable piece every now and then.
For instance, former Dade Judge, and current Broward Lawyer, Terri Ann Miller writes in about the lawyer dropping our of the Judge Diaz race in Broward, and give us a nice compliment:
Been there, (Supreme Court), donethat...Article V, Section 8 has beeninterpreted to apply when a person takes office. (See Ari Miller v. Gina Mendez, Miller v. Mendez, 804 So.2d 1243 (Fla., 2001) Newman v. State, 602 So.2d 1351,(Fla. App. 3 Dist., 1992)He knew the law. The reason hewithdrew was he realized the vastsum of $ he would need to spend...Love the blog, Rump, especially the Broward editions...
Finally, one new issue: SHOULD WE INVITE GUEST BLOGGERS? We can invite someone like Jason Grey or The Captain to have bloging privileges and that would allow them to leave headline posts like we do (and no, they could not discern our identity). This has been on our mind ever since our favorite federal blogger David Markus put his career and reputation in federal court in jeopardy by inviting us to be a guest on his blog.
Write in with your opinion.
See You In Court wondering why, if we are a monopoly, we are still kind of poor.