norms of engagement, 2

So, the discussion of the norms about blogging conferences, colloquia, seminars, etc., has extended into one of the longer threads Orgtheory has had, and I appear there to be staking out a lonely position. Most of the other participants seem much into the idea that "manners" provide the overriding principle for academic discourse. I see manners more as superstructure and other principles as constituting the base. Asking for permission is an action done with different kinds of ideas about the obligations of the other person to respond favorably. Sometimes, one asks permission with the understanding that it really is entirely the right of the other person to decline. Other times, one "asks permission" with the idea that the other person ought to have a good reason if they are going to decline, or else they are practicing bad manners themselves.

When I talk about a specific situation being "fair game" for blogging, perhaps one can say that courtesy implies a ritual exchange of asking permission and having it granted--in other words, "asking permission" in the second sense above. Whatever. I would prefer a world in which faculty feel comfortable engaging in discourse about ideas rather than feeling they have to go through some mutual grooming exercise beforehand, but others clearly disagree.

Still, in terms of the idea of what is genuinely within a speaker's discretion to squelch public commentary about, I am surprised at how some of the commentators regard things as private that seem to me obviously not private. While I still believe in the basic heuristics that anything that can be put on a CV is fair game for blogging, I think three other heuristics are even harder to argue with, although maybe one can say a person should "ask permission" with the presumption it will be granted:

1. If a talk is fully open to the public, it is fair game for blogging.

2. If a talk is open to individuals with media credentials, it is fair game for blogging.

3. If a talk is recorded and made available publicly on the Internet, it is fair game for blogging.

I mean, come on. Again, none of this means people should not be "polite" in offering criticism of others' work, etc..

More generally, I think another way I diverge from the other commentators is that I'm not just concerned about what's right for the speaker. The academic blogger wants to write about something because they have a reaction, and their prerogative to be able to share that reaction with others should not be regarded lightly.