Read on Twitter
Hypothetical: It's 1787-1788, but with same tech as now.
The Federalist Papers are published.
Would law profs:
1. read them?
2. reject them because they are anonymous?
3. demand "skin in the game?"
4 engage with Twitter handle "Publius?"
Thinking 2 and 3.
#lawtwitter
The Federalist Papers are published.
Would law profs:
1. read them?
2. reject them because they are anonymous?
3. demand "skin in the game?"
4 engage with Twitter handle "Publius?"
Thinking 2 and 3.
#lawtwitter
Forgot 5. Subtweet the f*ck out of them.
Hypo #2. Instead, they are published in a 4th tier law review, but fully authored and not anonymous. They are:
1. Ignored.
2. Considered awful because of publication ranking.
3. Taken seriously.
4. Rejected because not written by tenured faculty.
1. Ignored.
2. Considered awful because of publication ranking.
3. Taken seriously.
4. Rejected because not written by tenured faculty.
Just to be clear (in case it wasn't) I'm not comparing my tweets to the Federalist Papers. Or any of my writings, speeches, or teaching. Not one damned thing of mine is that level.
That isn't the hypothetical.
That isn't the hypothetical.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
