My girlfriend and I were eating dinner at a local Dallas restaurant that doubles a a look and be seen venue of local elite, elite wannabes and 30k millionaires. Translation?  You never know who is going to walk through the door.

As we were chit-chatting and enjoying the visual entertainment, a guy I know entered and walked up to the bar.  He was one of those guys or girls who over the years, you see repeatedly as you and your fixed clique of single, once single and single again acquaintances move through life in a often fluctuating but never really changing mate and date scene.

He was a very good looking guy that always had a very good looking women on his arm.  They however,  always seemed to be the same women.  Not the same in re-hooking up with a previous flame.  The same in that he always seemed to be with a women from the same rotating fixed menu choices that I have seen out on the Dallas scene for the last 10 years.

That night was no exception. In lockstep behind him was  a very attractive women who had also been part of the Dallas “out and about” scene for the last 10 years and had dated nine other guys I know.  I turned to my girlfriend and said:

“That makes perfect sense that they are together”

She inquired as to why.  “Because they are both into group sex”

She was flabbergasted and immediately suspicious.   “How would you know they are into group sex!!”

“Because they run in a group that no matter how many years go by, at one point or another, everyone in the group has dated or slept with everyone else in the group.  Group Sex!!

About three months later I saw the same guy again at a Dallas Mavericks game.  He was with, you guessed it, another group sex girl!

What is it about this “group sex” phenomenon.  Ten or Fifteen years will go by and the dating clique will move right along with it, fluctuating only as people get married, divorced, date and dumped.  Always coming back to the flock like pigeons to a homing beacon.  Keep in mind that this is Dallas, Texas, a large metropolis with plenty of dating options. I suspect it the same in New York City ,Chicago, Miami etc where the dating options are even more expansive.

Any explanations out there?  Is a certain level of insecurity to step outside our comfort zone and into the rejection zone simply part of the human condition?

Copyright 2010

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

Hate speech in our society is nothing new.  The real news is the rise of hate speech against Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities in the realm of social media and social networking.  Since the 1st hate site, Storm Front went online in 1995, the growth of hate speech on the net has been astounding.

While the greatest increase in hate postings have come from Facebook and YouTube, Twitter has not been immune.  Twitter users supporting the likes of  Hitler, NeoNazis,  KKK,  and The Westboro Baptist Church are  regular Twitter fixtures.

Unlike Facebook, YouTube and most other responsible social networking sites, Twitter, while having Terms Of Service prohibiting “true threats” has no rules against hate speech. It was therefore no surprise that while monitoring the Twitter-Feed of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) I came across the below Tweet from Truman State University student, Rachel Oettig.  You can read the JIDF response to the situation here.

This is certainly hate speech.  Did Rachel break any laws?  Interesting question. If Rachel had simply tweeted to the Twitter universe I would argue that no laws were broken and she had 1st Amendment protection for her speech.

Rachel however tweeted to another individual with a Twitter account. This adds a different type of context and new questions.  Was there any further act between Rachel and this person in furtherance of her desire to “Kill Jews” such as meeting to discuss it?  If the answer is yes,  there is an argument that laws regarding solicitation and conspiracy would come into play.  Did the individual respond with any tweet?  I do not know. What if this individual tweeted back, “Lets do it! Meet you in 5 Minutes!” ( I have no reason to believe this person tweeted anything back at all-it is a hypothetical).

What if the desire to “Kill Jews” was re-tweeted to someone who took Rachel seriously and actually committed a murder?  These are the problems of “Hate 2.0″ that have not yet been addressed by our courts.  The  new laws of “imminence” in a viral world.

Let’s assume that Rachel was joking and there was no real intent to kill Jews. There was nothing more in furtherance of the act than her tweet.  Is it then 1st Amendment protected?

While she clearly expresses her desire to “Kill Jews” there is no specific threat would trigger the “imminence” requirement under Brandenberg v. Ohio or qualify as a “true threat” under Virginia v. Black.   This is important because as a state school, there would be 1st Amendment/Free Expression considerations for Truman in deciding what action, if any, to take against Ms. Oettig.  Truman State University’s Student Code of Conduct states the following as prohibited activity:

“Any activity that requires the student or prospective member to perform a duty or task that involves a violation of the criminal laws of this state or any University policies, rules, or regulations published in University documents”

It an interesting question as to whether  enforcement of Truman’s conduct code against Ms. Oettig would in fact violate her 1st Amendment right to Free Expression regardless of how hateful and misguided that expression is.  It appears that her tweet requires a student or someone to violate criminal law to do what she asks(killing someone) in violation of the Student Conduct Code but the threat itself does not appear to be the type of true threat generally needed to violate a criminal statute.

And what if this was just the end-result of terribly poor judgment of a young misguided girl.  A young-lady all of 18 or 20 years old.  Certainly old enough to know better.  Also old enough to be currently getting  a clear understanding forced upon her that with one tweet she has altered her life forever.  That tweet of hatred will follow her through job applications, school applications, prospective boyfriends and anyone else who Googles her name from now until the end of the internet.

In the end, the most troubling aspect is that this is undoubtedly learned behavior. Whether Rachel thought she was being funny or even the remote possibility she was serious, someone or her peer group has taught her that these thought patterns, desires and behaviors are appropriate.  Unless secondary schools, universities, and  ultimately where the real responsibilities lie, the parents do more to to educate their students and children on the virtues of tolerance, troubled souls like Rachel will simply be another brick in the never ending wall of hatred.

Is there any upside for Rachel?  It will undoubtedly be difficult dealing with the negativity of her foolish, hateful moment but it also  has the potential to be a defining positive moment in her life.  Defining her as a person of tolerance; as a person wishing to understand prejudice and bigotry; as a responsible adult moving into the future.  If she chooses this road rather than the road of hatred she appears to be currently traveling, I wish her the best in her journey.

As many who follow my blog and twitter stream know, I have a small non-speaking, but visible role in the 1st episode of the new ABC series, “The Deep End”.  It airs January 21, 2010.  The Deep End revolves around the lives of 4 fictional lawyers working for a fictional prestigious Los Angeles law firm.( I feel compelled to keep stressing the word “fictional” so as not to confuse naive young Big-Law lawyers on who their “real” competition is in the “real” world).

I was on-set for two 10 hour  days to film a 30 second scene in an elevator.  Frankly, the process gave me an entirely new context and respect for the incredibly long hours on the part of both actors and crew that go into the making of a television series.  Everyone from producer Gary A. Brown, to the production crew, to stars Billy Zane, Matt Long and Nicole Ari-Parker were incredibly nice and respectful to myself and the other come and goer extras(at least within my zone of perception).

Being an attorney, and in tune with other attorneys in the social media universe, I have heard much criticism from the legal profession that The Deep End is out of whack with the realities of practicing law and misrepresents the life of the hard working, mega- billing,  young Big-Law associates. I am not here to dispute that.  It may be. I really don’t care. (Young attorneys must not have affairs, stab each other in the back or get laid with co-workers  in real-life Big-Law)-yea right..

I never heard anyone on set claim that they were making a reality show.  It is meant to entertain.  Either you are or you are not.  When I watch the premier episode, the 1st thing I will worry about is whether I look bald and fat in front of millions of people. The next thing will be whether the show is entertaining enough to watch Episode 2.

I suspect that ABC is going for a broader audience than pissed off Big-Law lawyers who feel that the their sense of morality, integrity and work ethic along with the legal profession as a whole are being irreparably maligned by this clearly socially significant piece of entertainment television that has the capacity to change how we view the legal profession moving into the new decade.

Are any of my fellow barristers really losing sleep over this supposedly horrendous portrayal of unethical Mack-Daddy associates and horny law partners? (there may be some worried that their wives will lose sleep over it)

Apparently the down economy for Big-Law attorneys has the young “legal-fete” outraged that ABC would have the audacity to portray things so “LA-Kissy Porsche” as the type of antics going on at this firm.  If you doubt that,  behold the following real-life twitter exchange I had with an young attorney would could not believe I would associate myself with such an out -of-whack portrayal of Big-Law firm life.

Me:  Excited to interview Gary Brown, the producer of The new ABC series “The Deep End, look for it on my site next week..(he was gracious enough agree to be interviewed for this site)

Outraged Young Lawyer:   Why!?!

Me:  Why What?

Outraged Young Lawyer: “giving that show the time of day? I know that you’re not directly promoting it, but you’re giving it attention…

Me: “Who are you, my mother? Don’t Watch…”

Outraged Young Lawyer:  many of us new graduates feel that these type of shows portray an unrealistic view of the legal profession. Esp. In this market.

Me:   “Its no wonder lawyers are out of work if they are stupid enough to equate a television series with real life practice”

Me:  “any attorney who uses The Deep End as a yardstick for the practice of law had no business being a lawyer”

Outraged Young Lawyer:  “look, there’s no need to play internet tuff guy. I’m just some random dude on the internet that responded to your post. That’s all.”(I can get that way)

Me:” some advice-worry about getting real clients talking to real lawyers instead is stressing over fake ones in a television series”

Outraged Young Lawyer :  “don’t worry about me. I will be okay. I’m just speaking out for those losing their jobs left and right. It’s frustrating”

Me: “worrying about a television series wont pay their rent either-just ridiculous..”

Moral Of Story:  Regardless of whether you are entertained with  the premise of the show; if you are a real attorney and anything Outraged Young Attorney said made sense, you may have gone off “The Deep End”.(except the part about me being an internet-bully. That is true)

Enjoy the show or don’t enjoy the show.  Just don’t tweet me that I look fat and bald.  If you do, I may go off The Deep End…