A comment on opinions...

I’ve spent most of my career trying to suppress any mention of my personal opinions about political matters because I practice on the plaintiff’s side of the bar and most of that bar is populated with rabid social justice crusaders (in a frequently hypocritical sort of way, as they talk a good game but enjoy an incredibly insulated lifestyle and don’t live up to their preaching). But the Wuhan coronavirus nonsense spewed by our supposedly wise leaders in California and beyond was the last straw. I decided that I would comment on the rights-trampling insanity of locking in healthy people on the basis of highly suspect “expert” advice. Once I did that, it was easy to quit trying to hide my opinions generally.

I will say that a number of plaintiff’s attorneys were incensed that I questioned the rationality of staying home to keep everyone safe. I tried to elicit some rational commentary about when economic destruction would be a factor in the calculus and got nowhere. A good chunk of America is so polarized in the opinions held that I wonder if we will achieve a new social compact without violence. In any event, my point in writing this is to say that if you don’t like the opinions I am expressing, don’t read my stuff. Seriously. If you are that butt-hurt over me calling out the intellectual void that we call leadership in California, just stop reading what I write.

As for my write-ups on caselaw, they generally reflect an initial reaction only. Those reactions might change as I dive into an issue, so read any write-up with the understanding that I’m usually sharing first thoughts, concerns, or critiques.

But turning back to my social/political issue opinions, they are mine, I am not sorry that I have them, they are not my firm’s opinions on issues (that’s for sure), and I do not care at all if you disagree or are unhappy about them. I’m not even going to give you a fake apology and say that I’m sorry you feel that way like politicians do when they fake apologize. I’m not sorry. Zero percent. And I will not relent in the slightest to the cancel culture mob, so don’t bother.

Dear Twitter, pull your head out

I customarily cross-post to Twitter when I write a new post here.  That may change soon.  The evidence I have examined is strongly suggestive that Twitter engages in viewpoint-based censorship by asserting its "standards" in a very non-uniform manner.  Twitter is a private company.  They can do this.  But I can vote with my feet if Twitter doesn't want to remain neutral in viewpoint suppression.  As a blogger, and irrespective of personal views of the speaker, I am sensitive to the long-term, dire consequences that will result if large businesses and/or governments succeed in limiting expression of entire swaths of opinions.  I was particularly disturbed when I read that Twitter had blocked the account of Glenn Reynolds, a pioneering law/politics/current events blogger known as Instapundit.  He made an ill-considered point in a rather rough way, but, at the same time, individuals advocating the murder of police officers go unpunished.  This is unjustifiable if one assumes that Twitter is viewpoint neutral in its censoring.

I don't approve of or condone all of the messages that have resulted in some high-profile account banning of late on Twitter, but the simple fact is that Twitter has permitted far worse commentary to remain on Twitter without consequence.  Maybe this behavior explains, in part, why Twitter is likely up for sale.