November 5, 2007

Today at Stanford Law School: "How Blogs Impact Legal Discourse."

I'll be on this panel at Stanford today, along with Larry Solum, Eric Goldman, David Friedman, and Joe Gratz. Jonathan Zittrain will be moderating.

If you attend and you're a regular reader here, please try to find a chance to introduce yourself to me and say "hi." It's especially nice when a regular commenter comes forward and a face can be attached to a name, but there's no need to apologize if you read but don't comment.

See you there!

I think I'm also going to be able to make it to "Bay Area Blawgers 2.0," in SF this evening. For more on that go to the Goldman link above. Say hi to me there too. I hope to make some contribution before rushing off to SFO for my overnight flight home.

Should I go looking for law subjects this morning to put at the top of the blog for show? Absolutely not. I blog according to the Althouse Method, established January 14, 2004. I can't imagine the circumstance that would knock me off that track. You get what comes by the Method and nothing can change that.

I saw that some fool blogger thought I blogged about Danforth v. Minnesota last week in anticipation of this panel discussion. I've been a fedcourts lawprof since the 80s, and Danforth is the most interesting fedcourts case since the 80s. The things they say about me. Anyway, if you want to see some hardcore law blogging go look at the Danforth post, and you can click on the tags at the end to see some other law things.

IN THE COMMENTS: Is it okay to use "impact" as a verb in California?


Ron said...

So! Let's have a 4th Bloggerversary party on Jan 14! Let's chrome that fool up!

Scrutineer said...

"Impact"? I guess "affect" isn't impactful enough.

I'm with this guy.

Randy Rogers said...

Judging by what I've see in print in recent years, there is a good chance that the coiner of the title was unsure about whether it should be "affect" or "effect" and went with "impact" instead.

WRT that guy, I thought he overlooked a real corker: To be honest with you.

Trooper York said...

Grusinskaya: Oh Baron Flix, I am so sad today. I must perform on a panel in front of a group unapprecative louts who could never understand my gracefull interaptive dance of the first five amendments to the Constitution.
Baron Felix von Geigern: Why is that my little chocolate souffle.
Grusinskaya: No one will be interested in my bright and shiney vortex. They will be nothing like my normal audience of slavering sycophants and preening egoists who shower me with attention day after day.
Baron Felix von Geigern: I told you I would be happy to delve into your sweet, sweet vortex while we shower together. Please leave the lesbian stronghold of Park Slope and abandon Hillary Clinton and Rosie O’Donnell to their own devices, battery powered or otherwise. Come with me to see the world. The world is our oyster and I will irritate with my tongue to form a pearl of wisdom that I will lay before your feet my little petit fore.
Grusinskaya: I have told you before Baron, you vulgar entreaties do not move me. I am a world traveler, a bon vivant, a chroncilor nonpareil. Look at my moving photos of dogs peeing in water and mishapen pebbles that I have pulled out of my feet after walking on the beach. Look I even have a picture of my luncheon posed artisticly so you can see the back of the plate.
Baron Felix von Geigern: My dear is it not true that you simply dropped your luncheon dishes on the floor and try to cover it up with some high minded discourse about China patterns. Come dance for me my little baklava, do the lap dance of the seventh amendment.
Grusinskaya: I am sorry Baron but I will only dance with my peers, not some hack bloggers, and certainly not a mere Baron. You must be at least a prince to approach my rosy pink vortex.
Baron Felix von Geigern: Lesbian.
(Grand Hotel, 1932)

John Stodder said...

I've given up on "is impact a verb?"

Is it commonly used that way? Yes.

Is it clear what people mean when they use it? Yes.

Does it fill a linguistic void? Yes.

Scrutineer was trying to be funny, but isn't it obvious that American speakers of English agree that "affect" does not convey the same sense of velocity, the same sense that direction has been altered by the encounter?

Gravity affects the orbital path of a planet. An asteroid impacts its orbital path much more and can threaten its existence.

If there's another word besides "impact" that should go in that sentence, what is it?

My problem with the panel's title is that "impact" is too strong a word for this case. "Affect" is sufficiently descriptive, unless you're going to argue that legal discourse has been thrown off course irrevocably by the existence of blogs. Blogs have impacted journalism, marketing, social networking and many other things. But the law game is going to be a lot harder to move.

rhhardin said...

Impact comes from outside, where affect is noncommittal.

Joe said...

"Impact" used as a verb is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as "dialogue" used as a verb. One of the worst bastardizations of the English language in common (all-too-common!) use today.

Joe said...


I feel a need to pre-emptively defend myself here: I use "bastardization" precisely because it is itself a bastardization.

Maxine Weiss said...

Oh are you the only woman on the panel?

I guess that means the men have to be very deferential and solicitous, and won't be able to josh you like you are just one of the guys.

Gender has its uses.

tc said...

Law School, language...what about the "law of unintended consequences" and feminist non- sense ? See below.

Hillary Clinton,gender game,11-5-07
So there are different rules when a woman enters the U.S. Presiden- tial race ? Geraldine Ferraro -who is supporting- Hillary and says so. that is very relevant to the nonsense that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro push -and its abysmal failures.
Having been a Family Court Law Guardian for more than a few of the children in question, I know what I'm saying when I say that feminism, multiculturalism and all other similar rot has done nothing other than destroy the foundations of the world.
More than 80% of my work in the Family Courts (nearly 20 years) involved child abuse and neglect. But why are child welfare agencies so overwhelmed with children in foster care ? Because of feminism, that illogic which denies that anyone has any responsibilties at all, and mandates that we,the taxpayers,will pay for millions of children born to unmarried mothers who have 17 children all by diffe- rent fathers (most of whom spend half their lives in prison).
The claim that child welfare agencies are "insensitive to a wide variety of social, cultural and racial considerations for minority families" is feminist rubbish and politically correct balderdash. The child welfare agencies are run by liberals, ultra-liberals and feminists whose good intentions only produce bad -terrible,even- results (no one ever learned the 'law of unintended consequences').
What we have in the Family Courts
and child welfare agencies -nationally- is little more than a sickly blend of paternalistic feminism that hurts us all.
Is that what we want in the USA and the world ? Elect Hillary and you'll get even worse.
5:18 PM

tc said...I must apologize...My discussion of Hillary Clinton and foster care was based on two articles in The NYTimes of 11-5-07, p.A1. Tom 5:52 PM

rightwingprof said...

It isn't okay to misuse "impact" as a verb in any civilized, English-speaking nation.