Social Media Content Rules

I was asked to come up with a few rules for a social media space. Here's my first draft:

• Be Respectful: Treat all members with kindness and respect. Disagreement is fine, but personal attacks, harassment, or hate speech are not tolerated. Engage with ideas, not individuals.
• Constructive Advocacy: Share and discuss ideas and resources that align with the group's advocacy goals. Keep conversations productive and on topic.
• Fact-Based Discussion: Whenever possible, provide sources for information to foster informed and meaningful dialogue. Providing one credible source for your information adds more value than unsupported claims.
• Respect Privacy: Avoid personal identifying information (PII) belonging to other people.
• No Spam or Self-Promotion: Feel free to post an introduction of yourself when joining this group, but don't post irrelevant links or promote unrelated businesses and events.
• Nonviolence: No violence, threat of violence or advocacy of violence of any sort is tolerated, against either persons or property.
• Admin Authority: The admins reserve the right to remove posts or comments that violate these rules or disrupt the group's mission.Admins strive to apply these guidelines impartially.
• Let's Talk: We're here to save democracy! What are your thoughts?

Student Bar Association bylaws

As the 1980s turned into the 1990s, I felt dissatisfied with my career as an applications programmer. Surely, I felt, I with my brilliance could do greater things. In retrospect, I see that the issue was not so much raw intelligence but my reticent yet stubborn personality, but at the time I figured I was in the wrong profession.

It was at a party at the house of Mary Bernard that I heard her brother Joe tell someone that at law school, one learned a different way of thinking. This sounded good to me; with a new way of thinking, I had a new way of succeeding. The story I tell about law school is that I had watched too much “L.A. Law”, learned that lawyers make a lot of money solving problems for interesting people and wrapping things up in an hour … not all of which came to fruition for me … and I wanted that. Perhaps both motivations were true.

I had a mortgage on a condo in downtown Springfield, so I felt I could not move; the only available law school would be Western New England College (WNEC) School of Law. Perhaps this limitation saved me from the frustration of applying to greater schools across the country and being rejected; one thing I learned from law school was the mechanics of verbal persuasion and which I definitely did not have at the time.

At any rate, WNEC it was. I put some thought into how I might succeed. Perhaps participation in Student Government would build skills, make connections and pump up my resume, so I ran for the Student Bar Association (the student governing association with a more pretentious name) without much opposition. The big project for the SBA was re-writing its bylaws (or constitution) so that changes could be made more easily; as written, changes required a majority (or perhaps a supermajority) not of those voting, but of those eligible to vote. Apparently this had stymied every attempt to update the bylaws since it was uncommon to get a majority of those eligible to even vote.

Undaunted, the SBA representatives pressed on. A session to finalize the language started around dinnertime, allowing for a couple of hours to wrap things up. However, every word was a struggle and these lawyers-in-training eagerly disputed their meaning, purpose and intent. At 9 o’clock we were far from adjournment. 10 o’clock. 11 o’clock. I realized to my horror that the full-time students had nothing better to do, but I and the other night students had jobs the next day. I may have left around midnight, having briefly bonded with a blonde woman who worked for an insurance company. 

I am given to udnerstand that language was finalized before the sun rose. It went to a vote of the study body, and as usual, while a large majority of those voting favored the measure, it failed because not enough had voted.

This was a valuable lesson indeed about putting your fate into the hands of eager students with little life experience.

March 21: The Resilient Government Lawyer in the US and the EU - Dilemmas and Strategies

Title:
The Resilient Government Lawyer in the US and the EU - Dilemmas and Strategies
Description:
Roundtable with Scott Cummings (UCLA), Lauren Rikleen (Executive Director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy) and Kutsal Yesilkagit (University Leiden)
In both the United States and Europe, rule of law and democracy backsliding are taking place. This situation presents government lawyers with increasing professional dilemmas, arising from the tension between the political agendas pursued by governmental authorities and the fundamental requirements of the rule of law.
This roundtable will explore what strategies government lawyers can pursue in navigating these dilemmas. We will take the call of the American Bar Association as the direct occasion for our discussion, calling on lawyers to speak out and stand for the rule of law: “There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue, or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear.”
While this call is intended for the context of the United States, it can be used to foster a comparative analysis and transatlantic dialogue on the role of government lawyers in countries experiencing similar rule of law and democratic challenges.
Date: March 21, 2025
Time: 11:30 -12:30 ET
Location:
Amsterdam Law School, Roeterseilandcampus - building A, Room A7.23/zoom
Register Now For Zoom Link

Credit:

The announcement does not mention credit. You may be able to self-apply for credit in your jurisdiction.

More Information