In the aftermath of a disappointing outcome, a Harvard Law grad turned marketeer created a Facebook group for disaffected lawyers. The group was named, unironically, Lawyers of the Left. Brian Tannebaum shared their sentiments, and tried to share a zombie post. It was “moderated” into oblivion, censored for not meeting “community standards,” causing Brian to walk away with a parting thought.

Some complained about the group’s name, because they didn’t view themselves as being “of the left,” but rather mainstream believers in the righteousness of social justice. They saw nothing peculiar about one of the group’s first acts being censorship. Silencing people is a fixture of those who rely solely on vague feelings, shared among others who have similar feelings, but can’t put them into rational words. If they have no meaningful words, neither will anyone else to drag them down from their perch of righteousness with the tyranny of reason.

…

Doesn’t this constitute flagrant viewpoint discrimination, censorship, in violation of reason and the First Amendment? Well, of course, if you’re the sort of hateful person who cares more about logic than eradicating prejudice at all costs. But as Josh Blackman explains, Lawprofs of the Left, from the long-suffering Deborah Rhode to the lawyer-loathing Stephen Gillers, are here to soothe your savage breast. First Rhode:

I teach legal ethics and from what I know about bar disciplinary agencies, they don’t have enough resources to go after people who steal from their client trust fund accounts. The notion that they are going to start policing social conferences and go after people who make claims about their own views about the religious status of sexual orientation [sic] seems to me wildly out of touch with the realities. Bar associations don’t want to set off their members and go down those routes and many people who are in bar disciplinary agencies care a lot about First Amendment values. Sure, someone might file a complaint. But, we can say that about pretty much anything in this country, right? That’s not enough to deter us from taking appropriate actions. My own view on 8.4 it is that is a largely symbolic gesture. It doesn’t get at much that you couldn’t have gotten at other ways, through employment, through curbs on civility. But I think the reason why proponents wanted it in the Code was as a matter of educating the next generation of lawyers as well as a few practitioners in this one about other values besides First Amendment expression. We as a profession have the capacity to deal with occasional abuses, I’m not sure this Rule is going to spark a lot of them. We’re a profession that knows better than that. I would hope.