Monday, February 05, 2007

Really Blue Monday

During the afternoon and evening hours on Monday, some truly nasty and mean, not to mention racist comments were made on the blog.

To the person/people who did that: Do you think the Judge you called a homophobic racist name found it funny?

Regarding the comment about the African-American Judge- if that Judge was your family member, and you Googled their name, would that comment have made you happy to read when it came up in your search?

Do you think Judges who are black or gay want to be known as "the black Judge" or "the gay Judge"? I think if you asked them, they would say they want to be known as a good Judge. I think they would say that they as judges, want to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or sexual orientation (to borrow a phrase from a much better man than I).

To the person or people who made those comments: you should be ashamed of yourself. More importantly, you should be worried about a psyche that would lead you to write such trash. Your problems are much bigger than you realize.

The Blog comments will be moderated until I calm down.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Hey Captain, how about a post on the final campaign finance figures? The reports were due on Monday the 5th.

Anonymous said...

i congratulate you rumpole on a first class blog. you maintain the dignity of the persons involved while allowing intelligent dialogue on issues that matter to maintain a fair and impartial justice system, with appropriate humor thrown in. keep up the good work. we in the legal community understand the sacrifice that it must be to maintain this blog and the time that you must dedicate is enormous. as a retired judge now in the personal injury world, i enjoy staying in touch with what is going on in at the "justice" building what was once "my home" for about 6 years. i read it every day! once again, thank you....whoever you are! (although, i think i know your identity and i am friends with you - but, don't worry, i won't tell!) sincerely, "former judge"

Rumpole said...

I can't think of a judge, current or former, who has ever said anything to me nicer than "sit down, your objection is overrulled."
I doubt you know me.

Anonymous said...

that was nice jonathan

Anonymous said...

Well, how come "THEY" can use the word but I can't? In fact, if THEY can than I can too! It is so disappointing that this simplistic thinking about the linguistic piece of America's most basic unresolved historic issue would be coming from a lawyer, one of society's learned professionals. The pain, horror and ugliness of the 'WORD' was created by white people and perpetuated by white people and manifested through the power of the state by white people (the latter being why lawyers have a special and continuing obligation to stem hatred in all its social or public forms).

That African Americans and others have taught us as a nation how to disempower the 'WORD' and make its use socially unacceptable by its creators (in addition to many other nasty words, several of which were applied to descendants of some European) should be a source of inspiration and gratitiude to us caucasians, not feelings of jealousy or resentment. Why, in fact, would any caucasian, knowledgable of history, covet their right to use the 'WORD?' YES, I cede my power over that 'WORD' to better arbiters than I of what is painful or embarrassing to them. (And Black Americans, of course, are not the only 'group' to claim control over the use of other hateful words or symbols.)

In my opinion, Black Americans have every right to use social or political pressure to infringe the RIGHT of white people to bandy about the horrible, ugly 'WORD', despite one's innocent intentions in using it or doing so in the name of creative or expressive freedom.

Anonymous said...

I must have missed the majority of what was posted. Sounds pretty nasty. Can anyone enlighten without repeating the offensive part of the messages?

Anonymous said...

or JOA DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Batman says:

It is refreshing that you (Rumpole) have seen the light on unwarranted, unsubstantiated bigoted and personal attacks on members and former members of the judiciary. But you must also recognize that you, too, have gone over the line on occassion. Fair and accurate criticism of judges and lawyers is healthy for the system. Let's keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

So how's the trial going Tom?

The Orkin Man said...

I have it on good authority that Jonathan is a Formicophiliac!

Anonymous said...

You are a good man Horace. And that person was despicable.

Anonymous said...

if you cant stand the heat-get out the kitchen

Anonymous said...

No congratulations here. You ignored several anti-semitic comments that also should not have been permitted. I wish you'd be more consistent and eliminate all of this inappropriate crap. Then, you really would have a first class blog.

Anonymous said...

And silence spread across the land.

abe laeser said...

I have thought a good deal about the perplexing situation into which some writers have placed our unknown associate, Horace Rumpole, over the awful messages that some have chosen to post.

In truth, all of those words are a matter of context, and an evaluation of the speaker - hearer - and audience.

I can yell out to a buddy "Hey, Jew - vust machts du?" If the surrounding audience (if any) would understand the context, then it is nothing more that a cogenial greeting.

Having spent years living in the South, in the military, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, I can assure you that not every "Hey, Jew" was taken kindly -- nor was it so intended. Often the speaker spoke those words as an intententional insult and/or to provoke a response.

All of us develop a layer of screening, and can distinguish between collegiality and racism.

We should all hate the bigot for what that person represents - a threat to each of us.

But we should hardly be so sensitive that we must chastise every politician who calls another man 'articulate'.

What was the context? Was there a sneer on his lips and an obvious derision in his voice, or was he being less than articulate himself in describing a quality that he admired in another man - without any thought of malice?

Of course, every obviously intended slur or insult should be removed from this blog. But not every word that is written is so intended. I can understand what Rumpole must do to prevent real harm to others.

However, this puts him in the terrible position of drawing the line - yes, the First Amendment line - in a very shifting layer of sand. It is not a responsibility to carry lightly. This blog has become a 'lifeline' for many who labor in the 'Halls of Justice'; and like a big-city newspaper (unlike the Herald) Rumpole has a duty to allow free expression that is not truly intended to harm. The civilized among us will respond to the cretin, but censorship should be a remedy in only the worst of situations.

I do not envy our Rumpole in how he must decide which are to be considered the worst of situations.

Anonymous said...

have you always been such a dork?

abe laeser said...

It would seem that I have been.