Category Archives: blogs

Another reason why I have been a bit distracted lately… after two years of my own little blog, I am moving my blogging services elsewhere.

I have decided to accept an offer to team up with Skepticlawyer (Helen Dale) from Catallaxy, and we are setting up a joint blog, Skepticlawyer. It goes live today! We are both lawyers (obviously) but we have quite different political slants – it just makes for more fun, really – the main thing is that we enjoy each other’s posts.

Henceforth, all my posting will be at Skepticlawyer, so please update your links and feeds.

Check out my new post on legal ethics and clients who confess to crimes. Helen also has an interesting post on whether libertarians and progressives can hammer out a political compromise.


Filed under blogging, blogs, law

Blogging meme: Gimme three good reasons why you blog

I’ve been unwell the last few days, otherwise I would have written a few posts on different issues: students suing schools for lack of support with learning disabilities, apology to stolen generation, other things. But before I get to that, I thought I’d answer Bruce’s meme of 3 good reasons why I blog.

(1) To keep my mind active and keep learning – I started blogging about four months after I had my daughter when I was not working. It is so good to keep thinking about issues and write about them. I find that writing things down clarifies my thoughts. And I enjoy thinking about other perspectives. Some people write about very different things to me, in a different way and from another perspective. That has been fascinating.

(2) To hear what other people think – Initially I didn’t think anyone would read my blog apart from those who knew me well. One of the nice surprises of blogging was how many other blogs are out there. And another nice thing was the people who found my site and commented on my posts. I think a really important part of blogging is being open-minded and open to the opinions of others.

(3) To learn and keep in touch with current affairs and legal developments – I’ve learned a lot through this blog – about the law, about other countries and religions, about other people’s points of view. I like reading recent legal cases and commenting on them for two reasons: first, to improve my own knowledge, but also secondly, hopefully I demystify the law for non-legal readers. Long-time readers will know that I feel very passionate about the way in which ordinary people can be alienated or sidelined by the law. It’s also been very interesting to research some current affairs issues more thoroughly and have a more informed point of view.

Who do I tag? I always feel a bit funny about tagging people in case it’s a burden, but I’ve enjoyed writing this post, so hopefully those whom I tag will also enjoy writing their posts. So I tag: Jim Belshaw, Stephen Warne and Dave Bath. Each writes a very different style of blog, but I enjoy them all. I’m hoping they will all give different answers too! (and check out their respective blogs, please).


Filed under blogging, blogs

More on defamation and blogging

It seems that the threat of defamation proceedings for blog posts is alive and well in Australia. Check out this post on The Local at

(Hat tip to the inestimable Jim Belshaw)


Filed under Australia, blogging, blogs, defamation, law, technology

Defamation and anonymous blogging

Has anyone else ever put comments up in online forums, or in response to newspaper stories or blog posts? If you’re reading this post, I suspect that you might have been tempted to do so. You know the drill then. You are required to enter your name in a box headed “Name”, and then you are required to enter an e-mail address. Usually, there is a disclaimer beside the box, stating “will not be published” or “for verification purposes only” or something of the sort. Perhaps you have used a psuedonym, feeling safe in the knowledge that no one will know who you are. Given a recent case in the UK, perhaps you need to mind what you say.

In Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Inc v Hargreaves [2007] EWHC 2375 (QB), a football club, Sheffield Wednesday, and members of its board of directors sued the owner and operator of a fan website,, for defamation. The plaintiffs sought to require the website to disclose the e-mail addresses of contributors to a fan chat forum whose contributions were said to be defamatory.

At the outset, taking off my lawyer’s wig and adopting a practical point of view, it seems to me that if one’s fans are already offside, then suing those who are critical of your management isn’t going to increase your popularity with the fan base… Just a thought.

In any case, the comments were made by some 11 anonymous contributors, all of whom were fans of Sheffield Wednesday. All of the comments were scathing about the way in which the plaintiff chairmen/directors and others had managed the club.

Richard Parkes QC said at the outset at [9]:

…in a case where the proposed order will result in the identification of website users who expected their identities to be kept hidden, the court must be careful not to make an order which unjustifiably invades the right of an individual to respect for his private life, especially when that individual is in the nature of things not before the court.

Ultimately, his Honour decided that the defendant should be required to divulge the details of only those contributors whose comments were of the most serious nature (at [17] – [18]):

It seems to me that some of the postings…border on the trivial, and I do not think that it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes. That, it seems to me, would be disproportionate and unjustifiably intrusive. …

The postings which I regard as more serious are those which may reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour on the part of the Claimants. In the case of those postings, the Claimants’ entitlement to take action to protect their right to reputation outweighs, in my judgment, the right of the authors to maintain their anonymity and their right to express themselves freely, and I take into account in this context the restrictions on the use of defamatory language which the rules of the Defendant’s bulletin board impose, restrictions which in the case of these postings appear to have been breached. I take into account also that the Defendant does not appear to have had any policy of confidentiality for the benefit of his users.

Having read the exerpts of the comments in the judgment itself, the comments in fact seemed pretty tame compared to some things I’ve read in the blogosphere. I could imagine the comments being made by disgruntled fans in the pub after the match, and indeed, I think this is very much the way in which the fans themselves saw it; except that they had put the comments in writing on a public forum, which gives the comments a very different status.

People often treat e-mail and online forum comments as if they are “verbal” rather than “written”. But what could just be a disgruntled whinge may come across as something altogether more serious when put in writing. I fell into this trap once myself with e-mail, and vowed never again to communicate problems via e-mail, as they lack “tone”, and may come over so much more harshly as a result. 

Furthermore, it’s easy to be nasty if you are just typing a comment and don’t have to look someone in the eye when you make it. I once dealt with a client who was pleasant if you saw him in person, but typed vicious and unreasonable e-mails asking you to crush the other side and give no mercy, even if the dispute was partly of his own making. My tactic was always to ring him back about the e-mail and get him to soften the instructions thereby. I’ve never found a “take-no-prisoners” approach to be effective. Softly, softly, catchee monkey…and go in for the killer punch if necessary at the end.

It’s even easier to be vicious if you are anonymous, because if you want to make up a sufficiently obscure psuedonym, even your own mother might not realise you made the comment, so you don’t have to take responsibility for it. Although I write under a psuedonym on this very blog, I always write as though I was writing under my own name. I’m sure it’s easy enough to work out my real identity if anyone really wanted to do so.

The lesson for us all is to be very careful with what we say. Would we be embarrassed to own up to it? Is what we are saying truthful? It seems that it was important in this case that (a) there was no confidentiality policy in place to protect the details of contributors and (b) there was a policy that abusive/defamatory comments should not be made. At the very least, those who run internet forums and the like will have to revise their confidentiality policies if they wish to protect the details of contributors.

Any comments, of course, will be treated STRICTLY CONFIDENTIALLY (just for the record, in case any judges out there are reading this blog).


Filed under blogging, blogs, courts, defamation, e-mail, England, freedom of information, freedom of speech, Internet, law, media, privacy, soccer, technology, tort law

15 minutes of fame

In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” (Andy Warhol)

Seems like it’s my turn to have 15 minutes of fame. On Sunday, The Age had an article about legal blogs, featuring a quote from yours truly at the end. The hard copy is even better because it has a picture of the banner from the blog (with the awesome eagle picture which Iain found for me). I’ll scan it in and put it on the blog when we get set up in the new house.

Moving day is tomorrow. Telstra cut our internet off a week early, hence my lack of blogging, commenting or anything else. I’m typing this before class starts…zounds, better get to class!


Filed under blogging, blogs, law, media, Personal

From little things big things grow

Patrick from A roll of the dice has asked me to write a post on my experiences of promoting my blog. I can’t guarantee it will be an interesting read, but here goes…

I started to blog when my daughter was a tiny bubba, and I was going a bit stir-crazy at home. We were having legal battles with our ex-landlord, and the girl wasn’t sleeping well. It’s hard when you’re very little and you’ve got to cope with the big wide world. I’m still in shock. Anyway, my husband decided that he wanted to start a blog. However, he is one of the biggest procrastinators in the world. I knew that he’d never get around to it himself, so I set one up for him.

Then I thought of all sorts of things I could write about on a blog. A couple of friends (and my mother) had always said that they thought I’d be a good blogger, but I hadn’t even really known what a blog was until I went to the effort of creating one for the hubby.

So I set up my own blog. At the start, I thought I’d just write about legal issues. I let a few select friends know about the blog, but to be honest, I was a little shy. Me? Shy? You betcha! It helped that my friends told me that they liked what I wrote.
I was reading over the early posts from my blog when I moved over to WordPress. I hadn’t realised how much anger was in there about my old workplace. I think it was a good vent. That’s how I ended up in contact with the Junior Lawyers’ Union. And then, some of my friends set up blogs too (Miss V, -k, RG and Cherryripe) which was really awesome. I love reading their stuff.

I never really intended for this blog to “get political”. But I suppose the law is intrinsically political. It involves making decisions and advising on matters which govern the behaviour of society.

I also love reading the stuff written by others whom I consider to be friends-via-the-blogosphere. I don’t know how they came across my blog, but I’m glad that they did. Sometimes I think it was through comments that I put on other people’s blogs. When people comment here, and I generally follow them back to their blog, and that’s how the network builds up. Anyway, guys, I’m glad that you got here, and I’m glad that I got to know you.

I’m grateful for the support of a couple of bloggers and commenters who promoted my blog and linked to it in the early days (hopefully you know who you are). Special thanks to Club Troppo’s Missing Link, which has featured some of my posts in its bi-weekly blog round-ups.

Speaking of which, I am now on the Club Troppo editorial committee for Missing Link as of next week, so let me know of any interesting posts (either written by you or by others). And check out the Missing Link updates, because it’s how I found a number of the blogs in my blogroll here.


Filed under blogging, blogs

Five Blogs That Make Me Think

Thank you to the lovely Miss V for nominating my blog as one which makes her think. I am really flattered and delighted.

I have decided to move to WordPress because so many other bloggers recommend it – including Miss V and Iain, listed below here. I think Ninglun provided the straw which broke the camel’s back with this post!
As for blogs which make me think? Miss V makes me think, but I don’t know if you’re allowed to nominate people who have nominated you? I would nominate her if she hadn’t nominated me.

So, now I have to nominate five blogs that make me think:

1. The Blonde Canadian – the lovely -k writes great posts about all sorts of things – life, friendship, teaching, politics. She’s alerted me to a number of interesting things (bullying in the cyber age, “Purity Balls” in the US, looking at three beautiful things a day, ANZAC day…)

2. Spanblather – Span is such a prodigious blogger. She puts so much energy and thought into her posts. There’s so many posts I don’t know which ones to single out. I do love a thoughtful lefty. She looks at feminism, religion and all kinds of other interesting things.

3. Iain Hall – Iain has been much maligned by some on the left because of flamewars in the past (which he now disavows). Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, Iain is a good person. He always makes me think, even when I disagree totally with him. He is also willing to enter into a discussion (which is rare on either the right or the left).

4. Halfway between Cu Mau and Sai Gon – OTT doesn’t post often, but I always enjoy her posts when she does. I get the feeling she’s a kindred spirit (lawyer, bookish, interested in life generally). I’m glad she’s started posting again even though she’s moved to the UK.

5. Junior Lawyers’ Union – A blog about the problems with law firms and issues arising therein. It got me thinking a lot in the early days of my blogging career.

There are so many Honourable Mentions, too. I found it so hard to whittle my list down to five blogs. I also like to read A Roll of the Dice, Armagnac’d, Planet Irf, J F Beck, Catallaxy, Club Troppo, Tales from the Reading Room, Personal Reflections and Managing the Professional Services Firm. There are lots of others too, including some of the other big political blogs, which always make me think.

The blogosphere is a vibrant place; so many creative and inspirational thoughts flying around. Thanks for all who’ve shared my blog with me – please continue to visit me at my new and improved premises!

Here are the rules of participation for those of you I’ve tagged:

  • if, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think
  • link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme
  • optional: proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ logo with a link to the post that you wrote


Filed under blogging, blogs

One year old!

This blog is now just over one year old!

Happy Birthday dear Blo-o-o-o-og! Happy Birthday to you!

It’s been lots of fun. I can’t quite believe it’s still going a year later, and that so many people read it. Thanks especially to all my readers, but also to those who link to my posts/blog, those who comment and those who give me ideas and inspiration.

I mustn’t forget to thank Miss V, Lol and my funny, thoughtful, argumentative Mum, all of whom encouraged me to get into this blogging thing. You know who you are.


Filed under birthday, blogging, blogs

Taking it personally

I’ve read a couple of posts recently about blogging etiquette, and a proposed code of conduct (in light of some particularly unpleasant incidents in the American blogosphere).

It made me think about political arguments in my family. Different people have different thresholds. My sister always hated political arguments in a family context. For one thing, she wasn’t good at responding on the spot, and usually needed to go off and think about things before she could think of a counter-argument (which, I can tell you, is not necessarily a bad thing). But if you put her on the spot, she’d often lash out. For another thing, she couldn’t help getting upset by disagreement, and arguments would usually end in tears. Whereas Mum, Dad and I would always end up shouting over the top of one another, gleefully trying to get our points across. (I can just see my sister narrowing her eyes at this picture and saying, “Humph!”).

So, these days, I respect the fact that my sister doesn’t like engaging in such arguments, and try not to spring them on her. I believe that she reads my blog reasonably regularly – that’s a much nicer way we can have a political discussion. She can go off and think about my posts, and she sometimes gives me a call to tell me what she thinks a few days later… That’s a good thing about the medium of the blog. It can be a less confrontational way of having a political discussion.

These days, I try to be a lot more respectful of others – I used to make a practice of attempting to demolish points of view with which I disagreed. Because I’m a mean debater when I get going, I’d often do quite well, but I wouldn’t win friends and influence people…and what’s the point if you don’t persuade people that your view has validity? I am ordinarily very gentle in person, but I once made a legal debater cry by systematically destroying her argument. Not because I wanted to be mean – I just wanted to point out the flaws in her argument. Perhaps I was a little too thorough. Now I try to listen to other points of view more. Hence my varied and politically diverse blogroll.

I don’t get hurt by people disagreeing with my point of view, as long as I get a feeling that the commenter has carefully read my opinion. There are a few issues where someone manages to push my buttons, particularly where there is a personal reason behind my opinion. But I always try to think about my response, and try to think whether I am being reasonable. I’m always happy to admit I’m wrong if someone can show me why.

However, the less confrontational medium of the blog can allow people to hide behind anonymity and be really nasty towards other bloggers (in ways which they wouldn’t dare in the “real world”). One thing I dislike is personal attacks on other bloggers, as I’ve explained in a previous post. (Even where that blogger has personally attacked others, or doesn’t listen to others.) The problem is that it’s sometimes hard to draw a line between someone’s beliefs and someone’s personal life – someone’s beliefs can be intrinsic to their identity. It is particularly difficult where a blogger discloses personal details about himself or herself on the web. By making these issues public, are they fair game? Only to an extent. I would suggest that the following types of conduct are inappropriate:

  • Invasions of privacy (publishing a blogger’s home address and personal details);
  • Related to the above: attacks on (and revelations about) third parties associated with a blogger (particularly a blogger’s family);
  • Racist, sexist and homophobic abuse (so, for example, a blogger may say, “I strongly disagree with the concept of gay marriage”, but one should not say “Gays should be exterminated”);
  • Stealing a blogger’s site, or mirroring a blogger’s site to try and steal traffic (although it is legitimate to set up a mirror-site to comment on or satirize the original site, as long as it is obvious that it is not the original site);
  • Pretending to be a blogger and stealing his or her alias;
  • Comments which threaten physical violence towards a blogger;
  • Comments which are generally abusive and do not respond constructively to comment threads or the arguments of others.

It seems to me that in the end, it all comes down to good old-fashioned manners. Respect your fellow bloggers, and treat them as you would have them treat you.

(Via Freedom to Differ and Litlove)


Filed under blogging, blogs, manners, politics


The lovely miss v has started a blog of her own. Her recent post on books inspired me to finish a book I had borrowed from her a couple of months back. After a search, I found it under the lounge. I think my little girl had pushed it under there.

Anyway, the book I have now finally finished was a very interesting book called Nine Parts of Desire, by Geraldine Brooks, a Australian-American journalist who covered the Middle East for six years for The Wall Street Journal. It is an account of Brooks’ attempts to get to know Muslim women during the time that she lived there.

I found it to be a compassionate and balanced portrayal, but one that did not try to gloss over difficult questions. It provided an interesting insight into the Qu’ran, and the different roles and traditions within Islam. I would say it was well worth a read.


Filed under blogs, books, islam