The above-signed blogress admits to daydreaming about what it would be like if, one day, the anxiety-inducing 'ping' or intrusive new-message rumble of her BlackBerry signaled the receipt of something more glamorous than the Daily Decision Alert or conference call dial-in instructions ... like an e-mail from one of the Supremes! Sadly, Clerquette has yet to experience such e-Nirvana. But our fabulous friend at Above the Law, Kashmir Hill, is living the dream.
I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.
It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.