I'm confused.  Is this a serious proposal or an ironic one?

I hope it's not the former, because I'd hate to be the person who had to tell you that a civility filter would be virtually impossible to implement.  Software that can detect rudeness, sarcasm, general assholery?  I wish.  Actual human beings haven't even perfected the art yet, c.f. the question I asked at the top of this post.

That civility filter exists. It's called Mother. (Some prefer the term _nanny_).

Good luck finding an email provider that will risk a) screwing up their users' ability to send more emails more quickly, and b) raising privacy concerns, and c) looking like a world-class dork to young users accustomed to anything-goes anytime anywhere user-centric communication platforms.

But if you _could_ implement this -- and I'm not so sure it would be all that hard, given the improvements in natural-language processing we've seen in other applications this decade -- and make it a default-on option in individual email clients, wouldn't that be a good thing? Perfectly useful software, if you could do it.

However, tep is right that you couldn't do this at the network level; it would have to be an option on the email client on your desktop to avoid feeling vaguely totalitarian. And it would have to be easy to turn off in any event.

Also, I would not want this filter on my workplace email system. I _want_ to know which of my colleagues (and especially my underlings) are prone to sending uncivil email within the workplace.

The Civility Check already exists.  I use it all the time.  Whenever I'm pissed off, I write the nastiest, most uncivil screed I'm capable of.  I savor every angry, sarcastic word as I'm writing.  I finish and read it a few times, deriving an intense sense of satisfaction while reflecting upon my malevolent brilliance.

Then I delete the damn thing and rewrite it the right way.

Try it sometimes.  It can be very therapeutic.  And it requires no technical acumen whatsoever.

Just be careful with that "send" button.

Natural language processing algorithms have indeed come a long way, but most of the improvement has been in semantic analysis.  Tone is by far the hardest thing to extract from a text.  As I said before, even humans get confused; that's why we have emoticons and pointless Internet flamewars.  Software that tried to do this would be far too prone to either false positives or false negatives to be of any value.  At best, it would just annoy users.  At worst, it would annoy users enough that they'd write angry emails to the developers, resulting in an ever-increasing feedback loop that would eventually destroy civilization as we know it.

Yes, if this could be developed it would have to be implemented client-side.  But, seriously, uncivil e-mails?  Is this a serious problem that must be dealt with right away?  To be honest, I rank it somewhat below "heavy pollen count this year" and somewhat above "wastewater conservation issues in Lichtenstein" on my list of things that I give a shit about.

"That civility filter exists. It's called Mother. (Some prefer the term _nanny_)".

I wouldn't trust that one. It depends on the mother...

We have a simple rule in academia for determining whether a sentence in our response to a peer reviewer is too uncivil to be sent:  if you can tack on to the end of the sentence the word "asshole" without changing the tenor of the remark...rewrite!

I realize this faculty does seem to be broken or poorly developed in many people, but in my case it's a lot harder for me to be obnoxious online (unless I'm making a special effort :) because the effort of typing out my angry rhetoric, editing it for maximum impact, re-reading to make sure it scans properly, and all my usual writerly scut-work provides me plenty of opportunities to ask myself "Will anybody's life get any better if I actually click 'post' (or 'send')?" or "What am I getting myself into by responding to this guy/gal's ideas in such an obstreperous fasion?"

When I realize I have no good answer to either of those questions, it's pretty easy for me to cut my losses and hit the back button on my browser.  Any number of angry, insulting missives have mercifully failed to see the light of day because I put much more effort into my writing than I do my speaking. :)

As one often accused of being uncivil, I should remind Dr. Sunstein that, had civility prevailed, there would be no United States of America.

Too often the likes of Sunstein mistake lèse majesté for "incivility."

What is incivlity?  Intemperance?  Impertinence?  Ad hominem?  The finger?

I enjoy the incivilty here (I prefer to call it "invective"), because it's of a high order, which is what makes TNR special.  The personal attacks on me, because of my comments, cause me pause, not because I feel insulted, but because I give a shit.  I hope Sunstein gives a shit, too, not about the insult but about the substance of what's being said.

It's a little like public office -- the incivility goes with the territory:

(William Allen White, about Wilson)

With calumny rampant around him,

he tasted the ingratitude of his republic,

the statesman's ancient cup of hemlock.  

No wonder, that on the high and empty altar,

where the flame of his fame was quenched,

and the cold charred ashes were strewn,

he lay helpless, while the high priests of the temple

cut out his heart.

Sunstein doesn't have it nearly as bad, so perhaps a little perspective is in order.

This is supposed to be something you ask for, right? Not built into all email software. So it's not nanny-statism; it's the equivalent of asking the desk clerk to give you a wake up call. If it's a product you all wouldn't like, that's another issue. I wouldn't like it myself, because I get mad when spellcheck highlights something without my asking. Never mind that unctuous paperclip who thinks maybe I'm writing a letter, and do I want help?

austin: "Will anybody's life get any better if I actually click 'post' (or 'send')?" Yes, your own for getting something off your chest. If it won't hurt you or get in the way of your doing you job then why not? Everyone needs a good kick in the ass once in a while. Obviously context is important, but if someone says an idiotic and offensive thing then why let it pass?

Besides, some of the funniest emails out there are uncivil.

luis - an african-american boss of mine used to recount how his mama used to admonish him not to use the 'M' word: "Don't call me 'mother.' Mother's only HALF a word!"

Cass,

I think you may underestimate the extent to which people like the chance to do some bullying of others when they will never have to see the other face to face. This is certainly what happens on most blogs, including tnr. It is very much like road rage--people who would be polite in person are obnoxious in anonymity.

blackton I once just a few years ago got into it with another lawyer; vitriolic emails were exchanged; I got something off my chest --not swearing at the guy or anything moronic like that, just plain, old, strongly worded insults; and he --the suck--complained to the Law Society about me for being unbecomingly intemperate. He then, before the law society tool it up with me, in the interest of getting the case resolved withdrew the complaint after telling him how mad I had made him.--which was pleasurable to hear.But for all the pleasure, I swore to myself never again. I think Sunstein is right and at a minimum is absolutely right in a professional context. Common law litigation is inherently adversarial --and therfore has built in de-stressers--and nowhere more so than in family law, which I do. Detachment and disinterestedness, which are not  necessarily antithetical to a certain kind of professional passion, are hallmarks of professionalism. The way cases get, the send button is an ever present temptation. Pretty good prescription to follow on the personal side too.  There are times and places where righteousness is in order. In those times and places, and well done, nary a consequence ought blow back.

"and he --the suck--complained to the Law Society about me for being unbecomingly intemperate"

Most people are "man" enough to take what they dish out.  Others resort to treachery.  I guess the problem is recognizing the "sucks," not an easy thing when it's someone you don't really know.

...Most people are "man" enough to take what they dish out...

The underlying point is to avoid all this distraction where at all possible, especially when someone is paying you for your time at handsome hourly rates to resolve their legal problems.

And Blackton:  ...Yes, your own for getting something off your chest...

To modfiy what my Sicilian friends say: "revenge is a dish best eaten well done."

"...especially when someone is paying you for your time at handsome hourly rates to resolve their legal problems."

This is what's most charming about TNR talkback (even in this new most unpleasing blogspot version).

It completely infirms mechaniscist and economicist theories about human behaviour. Just look at us: yelling at people, or at least discussing passionatly at the boundaries of "civility" (sometimes after those boundaries: sorry everyone but there is worst than me...), mostly because some subjects, which have nothing to do with profits or with gains of the yellers, are very deeply felt...

And sometimes just because one likes to talk (you know, during the making of my recently finished thesis, which is a most lonely task -- hours without communicating with anyone alive and only with books written mostly by long deceased people -- TNR talkback was a most important paliative, being the uncivil parts...the most fun)...

PS: if you're reading this, sorry Prof. Sunstein, sorry for calling you "intellectually lazy"... To be honest, I've got an enormous admiration for your work. "The Partial Constitution" is one of the best Constitutional Law books written everywhere these last decades and I MEAN THIS. I just think that you must go holistic and forget about all your rawlsian fictions... Your "incompletely theorized arguments", as much as their implicit intentions are understandable (not forcing the "overlapping consensus" out of it's boundaries...) are at the end of the day part of a very questionable perspective of man and of his political society...

...It completely infirms mechaniscist and economicist theories about human behaviour...

Sorry, what infirms what?

"Sorry, what infirms what?"

The fact that you're writing here for free while you could be earning money on the hour working for your clients infirms the idea that you're a calculating beast reaching the greatest possible economic advantage... you don't get anything from here except fulfillment of some human dimensions that are completely ignored by "mechanicist" perspectives of humans and human behaviour.

I do not mean to be "uncivil", but you're question... never mind (the "civility check" worked and I'm going to shut up... so much for the "civility check"...a kind of self-censorship, ordained to what? preserving undeserving egos? I must think about this...)

I was going to add to my question the words "you presumptuous twit", Biut I thought the better of it and decided that I had better understand what you meant. Reading your last post, I am glad I did. Clearly you have taken leave of your senses and the only thing that is "infiirm" is your mind and a little time in some infirmary may help.

Not civil but to the point.

"Presumptious twit". That's good and perhaps there's some truth in it... But anyway I really didn't expect all that bitterness from you. Perhaps will seek some "infirmary". It's hard to loose one's illusions.

Basman... I thought the saying among Sicilians was that revenge was a dish best eaten COLD not well done... I suppose either will do.

It's awfully hard not to hit the send button when one gets hot, professionally and personally.  It's never effective at communication though, is it... other than self therapy at the moment and generally feeling a bit foolish at best thereafter or having achieved nothing in the way of communication other than having made a really pissed off friend or an adversary who will want to eat his/her dish either cold or well done, as the case may be.

I assume Cass is not serious about his suggestion of a Nanny computer but just pointing out the obvious... But if it is a message sent into the blogsphere  does it matter?  Yes. That's why the blogsphere is often so filled with nuttier and nuttier rants, full of sound and fury, signifying... well rants.

luispc: If I am in error as to my incivilty, I am happy to be corrected. But I was disappointed--not bitter or bitterly-- by what I took to be your both your presumption and sanctimony.

...Basman... I thought the saying among Sicilians was that revenge was a dish best eaten COLD not well done... I suppose either will do....

It is "best eaten cold" but I was modifying (improving on?) it.

Perhaps you saw "sanctimony" and and "presumption" where there was just uncontextualized fever. Anyway, that's a problem for you to solve, Mr. Basman. And you were not just uncivil. You were plainly and violently rude. But, yet again, that's a problem for you to solve Mr. Basman.

Any law is an act of coercion, and coercion is mutually exclusive with liberty. If you are going to take people's lives liberty or property for a communal purpose just say it outright, I have a mind that this "libertarian paternalism" is "paternalism" in lambs clothing. The disguise is not convincing.

Will cop to the rudeness, you should to the sanctimony and presumption.

Someone with a printer go file this whole post and thread under "Irony".

Any self-probucramulated pontififobulator with the grease-gob plotzsyllabus intraturminable to presume that he or she depostimilitars my weebenifabulary sufficient to cronk even one single solitary wobuliferous dork-waddle can kiss my big hairy vivendeferential cradulectomerized ointment vestibule.

Same goes for his sister.