
Law, like history, is a field where amateur opinions not only are common, but matter a great deal: they define the discourse in ways that professionals must adjust to.This is something that the professional historical community has been grappling with for as long as I've been part of it: public history, historical memory, historical mythologies all are part of the public discourse which greatly affects the wider understanding of our work.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much as far as I can see is that pseudonymous commenting is harder than it used to be. New comment systems like Disqus which track users - for their convenience, of course - make it impossible to maintain multiple identities without basically wiping cookies between every comment. Similarly, facebook integration apps can reveal your identity if you stay logged in to facebook, even if you intend to comment under the pseudonym. I can't comment on a lot of blogs anymore without revealing my multiple identities.
In a discussion of US college campus representations of the MidEast conflict, I responded to Nadir Jeewa's incisive comment (in italics) with a variation of my own:
As an ethnic Muslim / religious atheist, I still identify with the Palestinian cause, and wouldn't want the issue to disappear completely from campuses. I just don't want to be forced to make a choice between supporting the Gaza blockade in the name of Israeli security (or becoming an anti-Semite), and supporting Hamas in the name of anti-colonialism (or becoming an Islamophobe). But, that's the options I'm given.*
As an agnostic liberal Jew, I still identify with the Palestinian cause, as well as some Israeli security concerns, and I wouldn't want either issue to disappear from our attention until they are no longer problems. Neither Hamas nor the Israeli government is worthy of energetic support at this point. I'm greatly supportive of Palestinian and Israeli people, and sincerely hope that sometime soon they get the leadership and opportunities they deserve and so clearly lack.
Part of the problem is a failure to think things through: people want freedom to do or say anything, but they also want something done if someone else does something harmful or hateful. And our tolerance for risk is nil, so we're more inclined to over-react (if it's public).
Freedom is a balance, and there are risks. Otherwise, it's not freedom.
Cherry picking and confirmation bias! Without them, psychology would hardly exist as an academic discipline. I understand the inclination to give these people databases and statistics packages as a corrective, but you have to fix the, if you'll pardon the reference, underlying psychology first.