You may be Sassy, but you have seriously helpful ideas to share, Connie. Thanks for commenting.

I like your breakdown of active lies, passive lies and half-truths. I think that active lies and half-truth are by definition done with intent to mislead, unless the audience is aware that the statement is intended to be satire or irony. Even passive lies become intentional deception when the passive-liar has a responsibility to speak out, knows that others are relying on him or her as a guide on the issue, or holds herself out as an expert or authority.

The context in which the untruth is made, or the failure to correct the misinformation, will often be rather good evidence as to whether there has been an intention to deceive. I don’t know how we could ever come up with a way to “establish” prior knowledge of the falsity, as well as intent to mislead, in any particular case. But, I’m also not suggesting that anyone set up a machinery to do so. Each webjournalist should be policing himself or herself and raising issues of truth when they arise at other websites. If you are advising that we be slow to call someone else a liar (as opposed to saying the weblogger got the facts wrong and asking for an explanation or retraction), I agree.

As for applying legal ethics standards to non-lawyers: It’s my opinion that, at least in the American legal system, the Model Rules and Code of Ethics are lowest-common-denominator rules — so low as to almost be an insult to the concept of fiduciary and professional duty. Asking others to live up to the lawyer’s code for candor is not aiming very high or asking very much. As I say in the main posting, webloggers are not expected to be impartial and may forcefully argue their cause. If a weblogger doesn’t know which facts are important (material) when drawing a conclusion or making an argument, she or he ought to stay out of the pundit biz and stick to personal diaries. I spent so much time pointing out to lawyers that they should be able to avoid intentional deception, because they often seem to be the most in need of tutoring on the subject.

You may be Sassy, but you have seriously helpful ideas to share, Connie. Thanks for commenting.

I like your breakdown of active lies, passive lies and half-truths. I think that active lies and half-truth are by definition done with intent to mislead, unless the audience is aware that the statement is intended to be satire or irony. Even passive lies become intentional deception when the passive-liar has a responsibility to speak out, knows that others are relying on him or her as a guide on the issue, or holds herself out as an expert or authority.

The context in which the untruth is made, or the failure to correct the misinformation, will often be rather good evidence as to whether there has been an intention to deceive. I don’t know how we could ever come up with a way to “establish” prior knowledge of the falsity, as well as intent to mislead, in any particular case. But, I’m also not suggesting that anyone set up a machinery to do so. Each webjournalist should be policing himself or herself and raising issues of truth when they arise at other websites. If you are advising that we be slow to call someone else a liar (as opposed to saying the weblogger got the facts wrong and asking for an explanation or retraction), I agree.

As for applying legal ethics standards to non-lawyers: It’s my opinion that, at least in the American legal system, the Model Rules and Code of Ethics are lowest-common-denominator rules — so low as to almost be an insult to the concept of fiduciary and professional duty. Asking others to live up to the lawyer’s code for candor is not aiming very high or asking very much. As I say in the main posting, webloggers are not expected to be impartial and may forcefully argue their cause. If a weblogger doesn’t know which facts are important (material) when drawing a conclusion or making an argument, she or he ought to stay out of the pundit biz and stick to personal diaries. I spent so much time pointing out to lawyers that they should be able to avoid intentional deception, because they often seem to be the most in need of tutoring on the subject.

My mom taught me that there are two kinds of lies: active and passive. Active lying is one consciously makes a statement known to him to be untrue. Passive lying is when, knowing the truth, one chooses to keep silent and thereby, allowing the falsehood to ba taken as truth.

Growing up, I learned that there is another kind of lie. Half-lies (or half-truths) that present a fact in an altogether different context.

All three, when done knowingly–for whatever reasons–are falsehoods. All three, when done knowingly AND with intent to mislead constitute giving false information and/or misinformation. Intent can only be inferred from previous or concurrent acts and words.

Legal ethics aside (there are more blogs than blawgs and I’m sure you’ll agree that it will not be fair to impose legal ethics on non-lawyers), there has to be a fair standard (in weblogging) to establish whether a false statement was written with prior knowledge of its falsity AND with the intent to mislead.

My mom taught me that there are two kinds of lies: active and passive. Active lying is one consciously makes a statement known to him to be untrue. Passive lying is when, knowing the truth, one chooses to keep silent and thereby, allowing the falsehood to ba taken as truth.

Growing up, I learned that there is another kind of lie. Half-lies (or half-truths) that present a fact in an altogether different context.

All three, when done knowingly–for whatever reasons–are falsehoods. All three, when done knowingly AND with intent to mislead constitute giving false information and/or misinformation. Intent can only be inferred from previous or concurrent acts and words.

Legal ethics aside (there are more blogs than blawgs and I’m sure you’ll agree that it will not be fair to impose legal ethics on non-lawyers), there has to be a fair standard (in weblogging) to establish whether a false statement was written with prior knowledge of its falsity AND with the intent to mislead.

Truthfulness or falseness have a better chance of being sorted out, but “misleading” relies a good deal on how willing one is to be misled.

While I concede that the “let not flaming beget flaming” argument does not do well to reverse the notion that “misleading folks is acceptable,” it does negate the “we can mislead because they do,” which you found “neither admirable nor tenable.”

As far as stifling my glee “while flaming someone long enough to say what [I] mean on important issues,” my article was meant to be a light treatment of the original blogcritics post. Sometimes, in writing, authors use facially absurd arguments in understated tones. It’s called “sarcasm,” a subset of “irony.”

Truthfulness or falseness have a better chance of being sorted out, but “misleading” relies a good deal on how willing one is to be misled.

While I concede that the “let not flaming beget flaming” argument does not do well to reverse the notion that “misleading folks is acceptable,” it does negate the “we can mislead because they do,” which you found “neither admirable nor tenable.”

As far as stifling my glee “while flaming someone long enough to say what [I] mean on important issues,” my article was meant to be a light treatment of the original blogcritics post. Sometimes, in writing, authors use facially absurd arguments in understated tones. It’s called “sarcasm,” a subset of “irony.”

Methinks the lad doth protest too much. Some of Mudd’s suggested rules were muddy and not well worded, but #1 is simple and clear –post nothing false or misleading. There’s nothing absurd about that rule. Your reply was also clear, that being misleading is fine in a weblog. The fact that ridicule other sections from Mudd’s Code does not make my characterization misleading.
Saying that flaming is no excuse for flaming back hardly affects your opinion about using deception. Being willing to be rude is a lot different than being willing to lie. Also, using forceful and selective arguments is quite different than covering up important facts.
Perhaps you need to stifle your glee while flaming someone long enough to say what you mean on important issues. I’ll let our readers decide for themselves whether I’ve been mis-characterized your stance on deception, after they read your Comment, your original statement, and my posting.

Methinks the lad doth protest too much. Some of Mudd’s suggested rules were muddy and not well worded, but #1 is simple and clear –post nothing false or misleading. There’s nothing absurd about that rule. Your reply was also clear, that being misleading is fine in a weblog. The fact that ridicule other sections from Mudd’s Code does not make my characterization misleading.
Saying that flaming is no excuse for flaming back hardly affects your opinion about using deception. Being willing to be rude is a lot different than being willing to lie. Also, using forceful and selective arguments is quite different than covering up important facts.
Perhaps you need to stifle your glee while flaming someone long enough to say what you mean on important issues. I’ll let our readers decide for themselves whether I’ve been mis-characterized your stance on deception, after they read your Comment, your original statement, and my posting.

Thank you for your thoughtful piece. However, let me make a few points about your treatment.

While my (admittedly at times flip) article was posted under the Ethics heading, please know that I do not advocate any misinformation on the order of a Model Rule 4.1 violation.

I was attempting to underscore how internet phenomenon such as flame wars were by nature incapable of being regulated. Indeed, I point out the futility of the “if they can do it, we can do it” logic two paragraphs later where I state that

[t]he better version of this rule would be “Do Not Flame.” Telling someone that they should expect to be flamed in return means it is open season for authors to stoop to that level once they have been flamed. For me, the practice of law has always meant taking the higher ground. Those in practice know that it is not always easy, especially considering the obligations to your client.

Your invocation of my text was convenient to set up the following statement: “I’m glad Justin has been so honest about being willing to be dishonest — now I’ll know to avoid his commentary or give it little credence.” That seems unfair, considering what else I had written. One could go on to read my entire posting, and be rewarded by understanding that my sarcastic double talk was a way to make a point about the absurdity of the earlier text. Indeed, the tone of the later text is entirely different: frank instead of flip. Or they could take your quoted text at face value and reach the conclusion you have provided.

So, then, was this misinformation on your part? Certainly no more so than using only the most forceful arguments from a split opinion.

And is this therefore a flame war? Surely no more than a Scalia dissent.

Thank you for your thoughtful piece. However, let me make a few points about your treatment.

While my (admittedly at times flip) article was posted under the Ethics heading, please know that I do not advocate any misinformation on the order of a Model Rule 4.1 violation.

I was attempting to underscore how internet phenomenon such as flame wars were by nature incapable of being regulated. Indeed, I point out the futility of the “if they can do it, we can do it” logic two paragraphs later where I state that

[t]he better version of this rule would be “Do Not Flame.” Telling someone that they should expect to be flamed in return means it is open season for authors to stoop to that level once they have been flamed. For me, the practice of law has always meant taking the higher ground. Those in practice know that it is not always easy, especially considering the obligations to your client.

Your invocation of my text was convenient to set up the following statement: “I’m glad Justin has been so honest about being willing to be dishonest — now I’ll know to avoid his commentary or give it little credence.” That seems unfair, considering what else I had written. One could go on to read my entire posting, and be rewarded by understanding that my sarcastic double talk was a way to make a point about the absurdity of the earlier text. Indeed, the tone of the later text is entirely different: frank instead of flip. Or they could take your quoted text at face value and reach the conclusion you have provided.

So, then, was this misinformation on your part? Certainly no more so than using only the most forceful arguments from a split opinion.

And is this therefore a flame war? Surely no more than a Scalia dissent.