Well, Michael, I was thinking we were getting too adversarial, so I’m glad you’ve brought the conversation around to something upon which we both agree:  (As I have stated over at Evan Schaeffer’s Underground and elsewhere,) the content of most law student weblogs has more in common with the archetypal 13-year-old blogger than with adult weblawgers.  If one is looking for material that might sustain the interest of thinking adults — professionally, intellectually, politically, socially, or as entertainment and leisure fare — the law student weblogs that might be worth a visit are relatively few. 
Please don’t go around thinking that I am unaware of the ethical obtuseness and lack of responsibility, maturity, and insight of your generation (regardless of IQ, the general EQ is staggeringly low).  [Prof. Yabut talked about such things in the post the ethics of the Whatever Generations.]  However, I can’t believe that Profs. Kerr and Froomkin, Will Baude, Evan Schaeffer and others took up this topic simply to remind remarkably immature, self-absorbed young adults that gossiping is not nice, that revealing secrets is generally bad, and that there is little anonymity in the blogosphere (so, blogged words can come back to bite ya).  Whatever such advice might be called (and “ethics” seems way too grand), it is difficult to believe (1) that it took a lot of thought to reach those conclusions, and (2) that the resulting pooled wisdom of “blogging ethics” is deep, rather than shallow.
If you asked every law student weblawger, he or she [and, I must say that I'm assuming that most of the worst offenders are male] would tell you they already knew all of the important concepts stated in the last paragraph and in your posting.  The reality is they just don’t care because, like adolescents, they believe they are invincible, invisible, or at the least immune from all consequences.   They do not need a simple “don’t reveal secrets and don’t gossip, or else.”   I agree that they need a lot of guidance about dealing with confidences and about socially appropriate subject matter; but, you have provided them with very little. 
I’m not going to go point by point with you about who’s is or is not taking your words out of context or failing to see the entire context (but, I’m pretty sure we disagree).  My bottom line:  Your distilled message gives little or no useful guidance, even if we assume the audience is ethically and intellectuall challenged ["Just Say Nothing" is the equivalent of preaching "Just Say No" to drugs or sex -- it might work for part of the choir, but it won't make any converts.].  As my original blurb says:

Any law student weblogger who doesn’t realize he or she needs to be circumpect
with what is said on a weblog (whether anonymous or not) doesn’t have the common
sense needed to be a lawyer.

In a way, Micahel, you are a victim of your reputation and prior work – seeing that you claimed to have something to say (in more than one post) on “Blogging Ethics,” I was expecting your usual insight and went away disappointed.   I’m not going to lower my expectations, but I will lower my voice, because I want the two of us in communication and listenting to each other.

Do law students need a lot of guidance on this topic?

Yes – sadly. We come from different generations, David. Finding someone my age who can keep a secret is very difficult.

My post addressed a narrow issue. Prof. Rosen, in his NYT Magazine article suggested that law school conversations are a blog free zone. I suggested otherwise, and I laid down a few things law students should consider before blogging. Again, I’m not sure what’s shallow about my post. Maybe it’s cynical to think that most people don’t act unless it’s in their self-interest.

I also wrote that “Moreover, the student who talks about his professors is unlikely to develop a close relationship with any professor.” I think that “talks about his professors” would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that this means gossiping. A lot of students talk how their professors teach, what they wear, whom they date, etc. That’s all garbage and should be avoided. But it’s the topic at many law student blogs.

<me>By your own words, the lawyer keeps a secret unless “it serves a strategy.”

Nope. You’re being an advocate rather than a truth-seeker by selectively quoting from my post. I said that the best lawyers say nothing unless it serves a tactical purpose. (Secrets are never revealed).

Let’s try a little harder to say something that would actually help the inquirers do the right thing.

Well, the post was not written for you, Orin Kerr, Ken Lammers, Evan Schaeffer, Tung Yin, or the numerous other people whose discretion can’t be questioned. It was addressed for a group (which is a lot larger than you might think) whose first inclination is to blog about the juice.

And, please don’t assume that every law professor is so shallow or thin-skinned that she or he can’t take constructive, diplomatic criticism.

Aha. Perhaps a re-reading my post would be helpful. There I wrote: “Unless you’re critically analyzing something a professor has said in public, nothing is probably the best thing to blog about.” You should also note that the reasons I gave for being quiet were in furtherance of a virtue. I wrote: “The best lawyers keep secrets and speak only when it serves a strategy: They are close-mouthed.” In other words, it is virtuous to keep secrets. Practice this virtue (as Aristotle suggested) early on. If you can’t tell the difference between critically analyzing legal statements a professor made, and things a professor said that he intended to be kept quiet, then you need to spend some time with Aristotle.

I’m wondering…do you not keep secrets? If I share something personal to you, as you going to put it on your blog?

Do you have friends? If so, are you one of the three ways people learn things: telephone; telefax; tell-a-David?

Sorry, Mike, but your version of Blogger Ethics is neither persuasive nor edifying — and adds nothing insightful to the discussion (how much spiked egg nog did you imbibe while doing your deep thinking on this topic?).  Any system of ethics that is only explained or based upon the actor’s “self-interest” is far too narrow — especially when “self-interest” is defined basically to mean financial interests (as opposed to integrity, self-respect, or similar characteristics). 
All my life (starting in high school, long before I got either old or particularly grumpy), I have prefered to stick my neck out and point out the emperor’s lack of clothing, to remaining mute in order to protect my behind. It has, in truth, caused me major aggravation and trepidation, but never the aggravation of losing my self-respect.  I’ve also preferred to promote integrity over income.  To me, true ethics (and professionalism) will often require self-sacrifice. 
Please don’t denigrate the term “Ethics” by giving it a shallow, narrow meaning.  And, please don’t assume that every law professor is so shallow or thin-skinned that she or he can’t take constructive, diplomatic criticism.  [I got some of my very best references and job opportunities over the year's from the people I have criticized and grilled the most.]

David, I could pontificate, or I could present compelling reasons for non-diclosure. The latter shows people their “enlightened” self-interest (re: show why doing the right thing is in that person’s best interest.) Since I’m in the persuasion business, I chose track 2.

When I’m old and grouchy, I’ll tell people they should do the right thing for its own sake. Then I’ll bang my head against the wall when nobody listens.