So you want to be a law professor, and you survived the dreaded AALS “meat market” in Washington, DC. You’re now sitting by the phone, waiting anxiously for a phone call for a second date. The phone rings . . . and you’ve got a callback! Now what?
Belle Lettre, the pseudonymous blogger at Law & Letters, has posted a very thoughtful and interesting review of my book, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. It is unlike most reviews that typically summarize ideas in the book and quickly react; Belle Lettre has really engaged the issues and arguments of the book at an intellectual and personal level. She also has interesting musings about blogging pseudonymously, shaming, privacy, sharing personal information, and more. From the review:
Are you a blogger?
Are you interested in the issues of Internet gossip, rumor, privacy, anonymity, and free speech?
Are you interested in writing a short book review?
If so, I’m offering you a free review copy of my new book, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet.
I just blogged about an incident where the 2nd Circuit sought to have Howard Bashman remove an unredacted judicial decision from his site and replace it with a redacted version. Apparently, the redacted version attempted to remove information about a rather dicey interrogation technique the FBI used. According to Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:
Here are a few reviews and discussions of The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet:
Is Howard Bashman a journalist? Bashman is the author of How Appealing, a very popular legal blog that many readers here read — and that anybody who wants to keep informed about new cases and legal developments should be reading. Bashman frequently posts or links to court decisions when they are released online, and a recent set of events raised the question of whether he should be considered to be a journalist.
NOTICE: This is an unpublished blog post. It may not be cited by any court or any party to any litigation.
A common practice for many courts is to issue unpublished opinions that may not be cited as precedent. These opinions are often short and consist of a few paragraphs. They are generally supposed to be limited to cases that can be resolved by clearly-established legal rules. According to one news article: “California courts of appeal issued 11,852 opinions during the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Of these, only 1,047 were published. About one-third of federal appellate-court decisions reviewed in 2002 came in unpublished opinions.” These statistics are staggering. Are there really so many cases that do not warrant having precedential value?
From the annals of the weird comes my absolute favorite item for sale on Amazon.com.
What is it?
I’m sure you think it might be my new book, but nope, it’s not. So what is it then?
Well, it is quite expensive, but it also is one of the most well-reviewed products on Amazon.com — it has 163 reviews and counting.
It seems as though books are the theme of my blogging this week, so I thought I’d recommend another great new book: Professor Michael Sullivan’s Legal Pragmatism: Community, Rights, and Democracy (Indiana Univ. Press 2007). From the book jacket:
I‘m very excited to announce that my new book, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy, is now hot off the presses! Copies are now in stock and available on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble’s website. Copies will hit bookstores in a few weeks.
Free newsletter with cartoons, writings, events, webinars, training, humor and whiteboards.
