2/ Everyone has BigLaw horror stories. But more often than not, those aren't the singular reason why people choose to leave. It's much more, in my experience anyway, overarching quality of life and/or professional interests/satisfaction concerns.
3/ Few BigLaw expats that I've met are out there trash talking their own firms. Who even does that?
For my part, I worked with some ridiculously talented lawyers who happened to also be nice people and good colleagues that I learned a great deal from and think of fondly.
4/ And it's not like firm don't understand *why* people leave, whether it's because they just aren't fulfilled by the work or want more time.
They get it, and I certainly don't think they're ever *offended* by it. To the contrary, they want to maintain good relationships!
5/ But while that's true on an organizational level, unfortunately some individual lawyers do see that kind of move as one of laziness, insufficient commitment, or inability to hack it in practice.
And that's terribly shameful.
6/ Obtaining personal life balance according to one's own needs is not, should not, be seen as anything other than a personal calibration that nobody else has the appropriate knowledge to critique.
It says nothing about one's skills or commitment to their profession, at all.
Anyway, this has all been a very long way of saying that as a profession, we should stop making people feel like their professional reputation will be hurt if it's ever discovered that they made a move to do work they find more fulfilling or to have more time for a life. It's bad
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Business school profs have just *got* to stop writing these articles about Section 230. Or at least have someone with an understanding of the law review it. It's embarrassing.
This one comes to us from a dean at @MITSloan, and it's a doozy.
2/ The theme of the article is clear from the top: Section 230 is Very Bad because it makes it difficult to hold platforms available for misinformation/disinformation that people spread online.
3/ But what Professor Cusumano doesn't grapple with (they never do) is whether platforms could be held accountable by law for such user content even without Section 230.
In fact it very much is, and the authors of the bill have said so explicitly.
The purpose of Section 230 was to reduce barriers to websites deciding for themselves what content to permit, and what rules to impose. And that's exactly what is happening.
Teachers, like other government employees, retain a First Amendment right to speak as private citizens (i.e., not in their official capacity) on matters of public concern.
Teachers *cannot* be forced to only speak as if they are in the classroom with students 24/7/365.
3/ The list of things that social media accounts will be screened for is broad, vague, subjective, and viewpoint-based.
Many things that could be deemed as one of these things are nevertheless constitutionally protected and protected from retaliation from @AustinISD.
"Section 230 is unconstitutional and we hate it, but threatening to repeal it constitutes government coercion sufficient to make Facebook a state actor"
When the bedrock, lead-off of your case is that college students not wanting to date Trump supporters reveals a predilection for infringing on people's rights, you've lost the argument in a way that veers way too close to incel-ville.
The court analyzes preemption under 230(c)(2)(A), but doesn't touch (c)(1). Normally this would bother me, because that's not how #Section230 works. But if you read it, Hinkle doesn't really decide between the 230 interpretations; this reads more like an "even if FL is right"
Hinkle was obviously not swayed by Florida's attempt to brush off platforms' curation as meaningless and expressionless. He seems to understand that those functions are vital for their products to be usable.