VOX POPULI

First, Tom Brady and the NE Cheaters are cheaters, they always have been cheaters, and always will be cheaters. There. We feel better. 

SEXISM. 

The issue of sexism has been raised on this blog, with the accusations hurled at your faithful blogger that we are complicit in promoting the sexist views of at least one, and perhaps more commentators who refer to certain judges as "little girls" and the like. 

The criticism, which we have received in the form of comments and private emails from distinguished individuals whom we respect, basically goes something like this: you wouldn't print a comment calling an African American judge a racist word, or a Jewish or Latin judge a racist word, but why do you print comments demeaning females? 

Fair point. 

We will respond, but we first aver that our position is subject to being changed by the comments we receive in this post. 

First, lets review the blog rules. We will not publish comments personally demeaning an individual or talking about their private life, unless their actions directly relate to their job. If a comment says so and so looks ugly or fat or doesn't bathe, we don't print those comments.  If a comment  says so and so is cheating on their spouse, we won't print that comment. If a Judge  is arrested for DUI, or any crime, we would print that. If a  Judge is accused of misconduct of any sort with a member of their staff or a lawyer that appears before them, or with a litigant (and believe us, the stories of judges sleeping with defendants in the 1970's and 1980's are numerous and legendary) we will print that. 

Racism. 
Racism, like sexism, is repugnant. If someone commented that an African American Judge couldn't perform their job because of their heritage and race, we would probably print it, confident that the response would show the idiocy of the comment. Indeed, Judge Marcia Cooke recently published on her Facebook page an incident where she was mistaken for a servant or cleaning woman in the parking lot of her condo. The result was a discussion about stereotypes which we think helped address an age old problem.  Nobody criticized Cooke for raising the issue, as was her right to do. 

When we print a comment from someone about young female judges,  in which the comment calls them "little girls", lots of people get upset. 

Our view is: fight back. Respond to the neanderthal-thinking comment and let those types of ideas be discussed in the market place.  We think that if we impose our morality on this blog, then we don't serve the community. We disagree with comments that call judges "little girls". And therefore those that criticize us have no problem with our censorship, confident that our views are their views. 

 But what if our views are not your views? What if we were racist or sexist?
You probably would stop reading. The market place would work. 

We see the other side. The people who frequent this blog want to read and comment about issues and not have their sensibilities offended by stupid and sexist comments which take away from the pleasure of contributing to a discussion. 

We hear you. We just want you to consider that you are setting a dangerous precedent by putting such power of censorship in our hands. What if we decide we don't like your particular ideas and won't print those? 

Now we want to hear from you. For the purposes of this post, we will not publish comments seeking to inflame readers. Meaning we won't publish more "little girl" comments. You can address the "little girl" issue, but for this post at least, you can't engage in that type of name calling. 

See You In Court.