20 Years of Our Blog

I thought I'd mention that this month marks 20 years since we first started blogging. Many thanks to all our co-bloggers over the years, and of course to all our readers!

Comments

[Armchair Lawyer]

Congrats!

And 15+ years about our good Reverend Arty complaining about white male censorship. Some things never change.

[DaivdBehar]

How many readers are there?

[Krayt]

Who is perhaps more important. Pols, SC justices, national columnists.

[DaivdBehar]

I have seen ideas from this blog in the news 6 months later.

[cmcc_aus]

I think I remember when he first added Rev, to his handle.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was more thoughtful before he got the Rev.

[Martinned]

True

[Leo Marvin]

Indeed. And it's a choice. No matter how many times he explains it to me, I don't get it.

[BadLib]

Fortunately we now have the relatively recent technological advancement of the 'Mute User' option.

It's amazing how much more pleasant it is to peruse the comments with about five 'muted users' (the not-so-good reverend being the first one selected of course).

Now if only there was a 'Mute User and Hide All Descendant Comments' option...

[apedad]

How about a link to the first blog!

[Martinned]

Oddly, the Wayback Machine already has a version from December 2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20011203051929/http://volokh.com/

[Martinned]

But here is the next snapshot, from May 2002, by which point it had become a proper blog: https://web.archive.org/web/20020528205538/http://volokh.blogspot.com/

[Martinned]

Here's a bold prediction from those days:

Conventional wisdom says President Bush will appoint the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court Justice, quite possibly Alberto Gonzales, the current White House Counsel and former Texas Supreme Court Justice.

[Syd Henderson]

So much for conventional wisdom.

[not guilty]

I thought that Gonzales would be nominated, with a sotto voce agreement to not allow Roe v. Wade to be overruled unless and until Jenna and Barbara got sober. Guess I was wrong.

[Ridgeway]

This is why it is hard to take you seriously.

[Josh R]

Looks like Eugene mostly whiffed on the cross-burning case.

The posts are only from Eugene, Sasha and Juan non-Volokh (Adler).

[Eugene Volokh]

Done.

[Martinned]

Congratulations!

And wow, that makes me feel old. I didn't read the blog all the way back in 2002, but I've certainly been reading it since about 2004...

[loki13]

FWIW, I always appreciated your perspective, given that this an American-centric blog.

Which made me remember that we used to have London Litigator ...

[Sasha Volokh]

And, if I remember correctly, it was one of your comments that tipped me off to the German Constitutional Court's decision on Art. 33 GG and privatization of force...

[Martinned]

Wow, that took me a while to remember. Was that about art. 33(4), which requires sovereign powers to be exercised by public servants?

[Archibald Tuttle]

Kudos EV

[dwb68]

Congrats!

[Will Baude]

Man, twenty years ago I was reading the Volokh Conspiracy in the computer lab in the basement of my college library . . . .

[Sarcastr0]

Were you pre-law then?

[loki13]

It's been a long time- congratulations!

I'd like to say I was there at the beginning, but that's not true. I can't remember the exact date or time I first started reading- I think it was 2004. I know that by 2006, I was a regular commenter.

I remember both the moves to various platforms (to the WaPo, and to here) as well as the many debates about the best kind of commenting system (threaded/non-threaded, the time it was on Disqus, etc.).

But what I remember most is some of the commenters and the early community of the VC. From the brief crazies (Ace, The MICK!!!11!!!!!!!) to long-timers who have disappeared (Mark E. Field, Joseph Slater, etc.). In the disappeared, unfortunately I include some commenters who persist, but in an unrecognizable form.

So it goes.

[Martinned]

It's certainly a long enough time horizon to give a person pause about their own ideological shift. I was always to the left of most VC commenters, but I can't quite work out whether I've moved to the left in the last 10-20 years, or whether the world has moved to the right. Maybe a little of both?

(Not to mention the possibility that applying a consistent ideology to new facts might have landed me in a different place, and the fact that certain ideas that used to be "right" like Romneycare and cap & trade, are now "left".)

[loki13]

I don't know that "the world" has moved right, so much as extreme populism is now normal.

It's also the increased lack of consistency. Everything is just a cudgel to beat "the other side." It makes discourse particularly hard with some people; I remember in the old comments, you didn't need to ignore because the comment section itself was almost like an immune system that would eventually eject the crazies. Now, it's difficult to get a meaningful exchange of legal views.

[Cheerio]

Comments are often snarky and unserious, but there are enough who still engage thoughtfully to be worth visiting.

And the majority of the "Conspirators" are generally quite thoughtful and analytical in their postings, so there's always that.

[loki13]

Well.... I mean, mostly (in terms of the Conspirators).

OK and Will Baude are consistently excellent. Which ... well, neither posts that much anymore (especially OK).

EV is still top-notch, but (and this is IMO only) I feel that some of his experiences recently may have changed his views. There's a slight, but noticeable, difference in some of his posts. But I still respect his vast knowledge of many of the issues that he discusses.

Adler and Somin, both of whom I disagree with at times, are both principled and knowledgeable.

....unfortunately, the highest-bandwidth Commenter may be the most questionable one.

And some of the other recent additions (Heriot, Kontorovich) ... well, sometimes it's best to say nothing, right?

[Josh R]

As a long-time, but not all the way back to 2002 reader and commenter, I fully agree with loki's analysis. I greatly miss Orin's posts (he was particularly good during the Obamacare debate even though it had nothing to do with the Second Amendment) and perk up when I see a Baude submission.

I too have noticed a change in Eugene. And can't quite put my finger on it, but he seems more bothered by cultural war issues like what pronouns to use and the power of Facebook and Twitter. That being said, he remains an invaluable resource for non-biased analysis of what current First Amendment law is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you think a guy who endorsed Ted Cruz and John Eastman is non-biased, you might be a right-wing extremist.

[bernard11]

I agree with this, but think EV 's partisanship has increased more than slightly.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sometimes I wonder if EV isn't sticking up a partisan lightning rod, to help gather insight to armor-plate arguments he plans to make in less extreme form.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That anyone in legitimate academia would attempt or expect to gather insight from the comments of Volokh Conspiracy fans is . . . unlikely.

Even at schools that would employ the likes of John Eastman and Josh Blackman.

[Sarcastr0]

In substance, but less so in manner. I first saw it back when I was still a lawyer, when he bought into the 'Despite what they say, most Dems secretly want to ban guns.' Disappointing.

But good manners are a telling thing - the discarding of decorum and embracing of name-calling by some on here says something about the rejections of norms whose trajectory does not go anywhere good.
And not just the new ones either, both Bernstein and Post got some issues on that front these days. Prof. Volokh doesn't seem anywhere near yet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is partisan censorship substance or manner?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But good manners are a telling thing - the discarding of decorum and embracing of name-calling by some on here..."

Some? Not you, though?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't call a lot of names - I talk about comments, and sometimes comment history.

[Armchair Lawyer]

LOL....sure. Whatever you tell yourself. Maybe you can tell me "you suck" again.

[Toranth]

Sure! You don't insult people anymore, but I remember it like it was just yesterday - when you called me a lying fucking troll for revealing data you didn't like that showed your prejudiced opinion was wrong.

Oh, wait, it was yesterday. Or maybe the day before. You do that sort of thing so often, it's hard to keep them all straight.

[Leo Marvin]

He didn't say he never calls names. He said he doesn't do it a lot. As a percentage of his total commentary, and compared to how much gratuitous name-calling and other personal abuse is directed at him, I think Sarcastro is remarkably restrained.

[Toranth]

Calling someone evil or fascist or dumb isn't name calling? He's done that in some flavor for most of his posts these last few days. Go read the recent Reedy Creek threads, or Parental Rights threads, or the immigration threads for plenty of examples.

If all he did was "talk about comments or comment history" why does he make so many attacks on people's motivations or mental state?

Considering the shit he flings around, I think most of the people that respond to him are remarkably restrained.

[Krychek_2]

There are a couple of other blogs I occasionally comment at (not going to say which ones) that require people to use their full first and last names. The up side is the civility level is much, much higher, as is the overall calibre of the comments. The downside is that there are people who simply cannot use their real names in public.

I'm not advocating for that here (and it would be EV's decision anyway). Just pointing out that one of the negative side effects of anonymity is, well, a lot more incivility and a lot less intelligent dialogue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Without pseudonymity, would we get the unvarnished responses to the red meat the Volokh Conspiracy daily tosses to its followers?

The unpolished nature of the comments seems valuable.

[Don Nico]

One can generally make a comparison with the comments on NYT articles which often carry the subscriber's full name.

[not guilty]

I miss Disqus.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Heh. Me too.

[Cheerio]

Congrats, Prof. Volokh. I've popped in many times over the years, although my username has changed a couple times...

When I went to law school, even my professors who tended to disagree with you would occasionally reference you as one of the most prominent scholars representing a generally-libertarian perspective on first amendment matters. (Of course, that was before this bizarre cultural trend of trying to marginalize everything/everyone someone disagrees with...which seems particularly potent in the academic echo chamber...)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If your professors identify Prof. Volokh as a libertarian rather than as a movement conservative . . . which clinger school did you attend?

[Cheerio]

Heh, nice try...I attended a public/state law school.

An EV may be right-libertarian, but surely not a social conservative; I believe he was a fairly early supporter of gay marriage rights, and I'm not aware if he's ever even expressed a position on abortion...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is a movement conservative who occasionally masquerades as a libertarian when he either is embarrassed to call himself a conservative or figures a different label will provide an advantage of some sort.

Not that there's anything wrong with . . . never mind.

[Orbital Mechanic]

20 years of daily being told how wrong you are about everything. Just like getting married again.

[Martinned]

Also something I've thought about as I get older. I think the internet (both social media and blog comments sections) makes people underestimate how much they agree, because you're much more likely to write a reply if you disagree.

[Bob from Ohio]

Congratulations!

Been here since Instapundit linked to you sometime later that year. Man am I old.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Congratulations!

[bernard11]

I don't know how long I've been here but it's been a while. I definitely remember Juan non-Volokh and lots of other things.

[Syd Henderson]

I must have been here since near the beginning since I started hunting for constitutional law discussions during the Clinton impeachment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Been following since a few years before the WaPo move. Still miss that early format.

Loki's comment resonates, about the format and subject matter working almost like an immune system to keep blog quality healthy. I noticed that right away about the VC. Even thought of it in those terms.

It got me thinking then about how it might be possible to generalize, elevate the content level for other subjects, and roll out other blogs. Maybe even try to solve the problem of missing internet news gathering, with a general news format tailored to repel trolls.

Anyway, the REASON version strikes me as immune compromised, but these days I am an advocate for the immune compromised.

Thanks EV, it would have been unsupportable to try to do comments for years on a left-wing site.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Thanks EV, it would have been unsupportable to try to do comments for years on a left-wing site. "

Because a commenting system can't live without conspiracy theories, multifaceted bigotry, vile racial slurs, threats against liberals, and claims of right-wing victory in the culture war?

[Martinned]

Have you seen left-wing blogs lately?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not much.

Do the lefties regularly spout vile racial slurs, too?

If so, that would be deeply disappointing.

[Leo Marvin]

They're just as tribal, belligerent, and intolerant of opposing views as right wing commenters. Say what you will about this place, and it saddens my how far downhill it's gone, but it's still not nearly the echo chamber most comment sections are on both sides.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So the main point of distinction is the racism, the gay-bashing, the misogyny, the xenophobia, and the Muslim-hating?

[Leo Marvin]

Regrettably there's more of that here than there used to be in the beforetimes when Eugene and Orin spent considerable time weeding the garden. FWIW your current shtick wouldn't have played back then either. But if you think some of the commenters at unapologetically tribal-left blogs don't have their own inimitable style of assholery, think again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

First, I distinguish boorishness from bigotry in important ways and to important degree.

Second, my comments generally respond to others' posts or comments. I hope my responses would differ were there less racism, xenophobia, misogyny, gay-bashing, Muslim-hating, and belligerent right-wing ignorance at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Leo Marvin]

First, I distinguish boorishness from bigotry in important ways and to important degree.

I see plenty of boorishness and bigotry from both sides. That doesn't mean they're equivalent. What distinguishes them IMO is that LW bigotry generally targets the historically powerful, while RW bigotry generally targets the historically marginalized and oppressed. And punching up being more pardonable than punching down, that means the RW bigotry generally is more contemptible. But even punching up can be wrong and obnoxious if it's done indiscriminately. And if there's one thing you can say about the hatred emanating from some factions of both sides, it's wildly indiscriminate.

Second, my comments generally respond to others' posts or comments.

"Generally" is doing a lot of work there. Your comments inevitably go far beyond particularized response. They smear huge swaths of regional/socio-economic groups you seem to consider beneath you. That's neither punching back nor punching up by any measure. The most generous thing I can say is it's not the worst kind of bigotry we see here. But it's bad enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Your comments inevitably go far beyond particularized response. They smear huge swaths of regional/socio-economic groups you seem to consider beneath you. That's neither punching back nor punching up by any measure. The most generous thing I can say is it's not the worst kind of bigotry we see here. But it's bad enough."

That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection, worthy of consideration. Thank you.

I agree with what I think you have said about which side is worse. The racism and other forms of bigotry. The calls for liberals to be shot, gassed, raped, placed face-down in landfills, sent to Zyklon showers, etc. (All of which, of course, is approved by the management.) The belligerently ignorant, uninformed "legal analysis." Conservatives make it essentially impossible to move below them in this context.

But that does not excuse anything and everything advanced in response to bigotry, threats, more bigotry, and stupidity. You may have a solid point. Thank you for it.

[Leo Marvin]

You're welcome.

[rsteinmetz]

Congratulations!

I've been trying to figure out when I started reading. It was before the WaPo but I can't remember exactly when.

[Sidney r finkel]

KUDOS!

And more for practicing what you preach, and having this forum open for all comments, no matter how offensive, inane, inaccurate, and just plain stupid, and yes I include myself (sometimes) in that description.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"all comments"?

I understand why the repeated calls for liberals to be gassed, raped, shot, placed in landfills, and sent to Zyklon showers might incline one to believe this blog censors nothing, but that sense would be demonstrably wrong, as ample evidence establishes.

Just ask Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland about . . . oops, forgot, you can't ask Artie Ray, because Prof. Volokh banned him with prejudice for poking fun at conservatives.

Or try to use certain non-profane terms to describe conservatives, and watch Prof. Volokh vanish your comments repeatedly and warn you never to use them again. Then, for giggles, watch conservatives use the same terms without consequence.

This blog features plenty of partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censorship. The record establishing that point is vivid.

If Prof. Volokh wishes to dispute this point, I encourage him to attempt to correct the record so that we can all evaluate the evidence.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

It wasn't always this way. The comments have become much more polarized, much less civil, and a heck of lot less scholarly. Back in the day, many folks read the blog, not just for the blog itself, but also for the comments. I kept a copy of comments about the commenters here from other blogs
For example, 2007:
"Great Discussion at Volokh. How often have I directed y’all to a comments section? Never, right? This blogpost and comments section at the lawblog Volokh Conspiracy has all sorts of smart people ... There is a minimum of snarling, hyperlinks to interesting articles about cognitive development, and some new (to me) ideas."
Now, not so much.

Or this one from 2010:
"The commenters at Volokh are typically among the most thoughtful and articulate on the web on anything."
[I started the search because I found a comment of mine quoted on another blog, with the introduction "Stash nails it." What a great day. I expanded the search, and found about ten Volokh commenters cited on other blogs. Most of the cited commenters don't seem to be here anymore: John Herbison, theBuckWheat, Joe Horton, logicnazi, nn489, Kate, Rich Rostrom, Platypus, Allan Leedy, merevaudevillian.]

I don't blame Volokh. The commentary has simply deteriorated. There are still intelligent, civil comments and commenters attempting to engage in rational discourse. But most of the comments are attacks, snarks, and gratuitous abuse. It is easy to fall into, which is why I have gone from being an almost daily commenter to an occasional one, as I try to restrain myself from posting in like manner. I fondly remember the days when I (almost) changed the Rev's mind on something, and when I (almost) convinced Dr. Bernstein of something.
Still, all in all, with the glaring exception others have already mentioned, the blog itself is usually enjoyable and worth reading even when I disagree with it. In these times, who could ask for more?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't blame Volokh. "

Did Prof. Blackman sneak in while Prof. Volokh was not looking? Did the Federalist Society order Prof. Volokh to bring Prof. Blackman aboard?

This blog and its comments are what Prof. Volokh wants them to be. And this appears to please most of this blog's fans.

[ThanksForTheFish]

Congrats to all that have kept this going and offered immeasurable content for our consideration. Even when I disagree.

[DaveM]

One of the very few blogs that I read each and every day. Well done, and a huge thank you, especially for keeping comments open. I've learned so much.

[Aemon McGarret]

I have been reading this blog for 10 years, give or take. Most of what I know about the U.S. law & judicial system, I learned here. (is that a good thing, or bad thing?) Also found the Maccabeats one holiday season.
This is a very strange place. Full of a wild range of voices.
Thank you all.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Plaudits and praises, laurels and tied bouquets. I'll put you in my will, old geezer that I am.

[Mark Leen]

I think I have been following the blog since 2005 or so (that is the earliest reference I made to it in my old email account).

[Leo Marvin]

Congrats.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Been reading it for 15 years. I come to it every day. Blackman is an immature blot on this blog, and being with Reason has attracted vicious right wing trollers, but on the whole it’s informative and thought provoking. I like reading well thought out posts even if I often disagree with the conclusions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Blackman was invited, and the proprietor knew precisely what he would get and exactly what he wanted.

[MollyGodiva]

And who would have guesses that this blog would attract such vile fascist commentators.

[David Nieporent]

Also been here since 2002, probably a link from Instapundit. Don't know the exact time, of course. And I agree with Loki's nostalgic assessment.

[Life of Brian]

Congrats! I've been around since at least 2010, back was Sarcastr0 actually was.

[Caphon]

Congrats! I was reading since the very early days of the first blog. Really appreciate all y’all!

[F.D. Wolf]

Congratulations! I read the blog when it was its own site, then stopped when it went behind the WaPo paywall. It is by far my favorite legal blog, though, I confess, I don't wander to other parts of the Reason site because it seems to me the primary concern of many of the writers seems to agitate for the legalization of psychedelic drugs, and often their articles read like they were written by someone on psychedelic drugs.

About 20 years ago I lived in Lubbock, Texas. There was a guy there named The Mad Hatter. (That was his legal name; I don't know what it was before he changed it). Hatter was once the Libertarian candidate for the House of Representatives there. He also ran for mayor. (You might have thought he would have fared better than he did in a college town). I found Libertarians to fall roughly into two camps: the "legalize marijuana (because I love to smoke marijuana)" camp, and the "privatize everything/have you read Lysander Spooner?" camp. Not serious people.

[Kazinski]

You would think after 20 years you would be able to quit your day job.

I'm surprised AOL or Vox never made you an offer you couldn't refuse. But congratulations are definitely in order, after 20 years it's still one of the only places on the internet that is consistently engaging, and rarer still where the left and right can still engage sometimes even making substantive arguments.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Twenty Years A Blogger might make a great movie some day....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Congratulations! Wishes for 20 more years of health, happiness and blogging.