What's in a name?

There is a reason I blog under my real name. Certainly, there are some risks. What I say in this blog is out in public, which means that I have to take responsibility for what I say. If I blogged under an anonymous moniker, I might write about other thoughts or topics, but the purpose of this blog has always been to chronical my thoughts about law school that I would normally share in a non-Internet forum with friends and family. The blog is simply a different medium. Many people share much more personal information on myspace or facebook than I ever would think of posting to the public, but maybe they are more open in person too? On the other-side, there are also some bloggers who feel their personal safety and privacy would be jeopardized if they used their real name. I think this concern is real, unfortunately. There are some creepy people out there who are looking to abuse innocent disclosures of private information. Therefore, I think I try to strike a balance between putting myself out there under my real name and keeping back those thoughts that would jeopardize my privacy or my job marketability in the future. If I feel good about what I write and a future employer reads this blog and does not like what he reads, it is unlikely I would want to work for him anyway. This is one of the perks to blogging under my real name. By being honest with the world, I am inviting the world to be honest with me, and I believe this standard works out best in the long run. The legal profession requires a standard of honesty and a lawyer plays a dangerous game when he begins to act in less than honest ways. So, I think this blog is a good place to start.

Not all lawyers will understand this. There are bad lawyers. Some are crooks, but others are just stupid. That is the same with all people. On the Internet, for example, there are plenty of crooks, and there are even more people who are just acting stupid. One of the behaviors that is rampant on the Internet is dishonesty. The medium is simply conducive to such behavior. Not all of this behavior is necessarily bad or harmful. Some of it is quite intelligent, creative, or funny. The Anonymous Lawyer phenomenon, that fictitious chronicle of a big firm lawyer, is both intelligent and hugely entertaining. The author's anonymity was part of the charm, and none were harmed by the deception. Another example of creative deception from television is Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report. He plays a fictitious character and part of the humor is getting interviewees, who are not playing a role, to say ridiculous things that play into the Colbert character. I find this show both hilarious and brilliant, and I lay much of its success on the good naturedness of the humor: the guests who are made to look like fools are in on the joke! The "dishonesty" is necessary for the humor, but no one is really deceived and everyone gets to enjoy the laughter.

Compare that to the humor of Sacha Baron Cohen, the mind behind the character of Borat. His humor is inherently disingenuous and cheap. Not only does he rely on dishonestly to make anonymous individuals look foolish, but because this is really more mean-spirited than comical, he has to rely on scatological jokes to make it work. Who doesn't think poop jokes are funny? This means it does not take much talent to get people to laugh with a poop joke. What separates a true comedic genius like Stephen Colbert from Sacha Baran Cohen is that it would be very difficult to emulate what Colbert does. The humor of Cohen on the other-hand is regularly, although admittedly less successfully, recreated by thousands of thirteen year-old boys in prank phone calls. In a prank phone call, the joke is one-sided; If the caller is successful in pulling off the stunt, his actions are harassment and can actually be quite frightening. If the caller is unsuccessful in pulling off his character, then he just looks pathetic.

Before I get to far off on that tangent, I should pull the narrative of this post back on topic. The telephone, the Internet, television all provide new opportunities to deceive. Deception is a necessary ingredient to fiction or drama, but there is a distinction between deception used for entertainment and art and deception used to harass. The new mediums of communication allow greater opportunities for both, but I think most people understand the difference. Borat is certainly funny, but Cohen's humor is not legendary and will soon be forgotten. I do not really feel sorry for his "interviewees," because I am sure they all signed releases before letting their images be used for the film. Unlike art, the law does not, and should not, rely on deception. It relies on good arguments, and it is the lawyer's role to make sure that those arguments are grounded in fact. This requires the highest standards of honesty, and it is for this reason that lawyers are disbarred for acts of dishonesty, in both their professional and personal lives. That is why I blog with my real name -- to say what I mean honestly and to take responsibility for my words. If people wish to critique what I say, they are free to do so, but as I enter into this profession, I expect the same standards of honesty from other attorneys. I do my best to stay away from those incapable of living up to the standards and responsibility of the profession. I like my deception in the form of a novel or some good comedy.