Yesterday's post on FIRE's use of enhanced quotation in the Citrus College case drew some interesting email. Some of it focussed on explaining how polishing up a client's words to make them look better is common practice among lawyers and advocacy groups; some of it expressed distress at learning that at FIRE, a quote may not really be a quote; some of it both acknowledged how common the practice of quote enhancement is and questioned whether that practice should be as common, as casual, and as accepted as it evidently is.

From a reader who is also a lawyer:

I believe you may have been too harsh in your comments re Chris' statement posted on FIRE's site. As an attorney, if I release a public comment for a client, we will review it over and over to make sure it says what we want to say -- not too much and not too little. It is the nature of issuing public statements when lawyers are involved. I realize the attorney would have had a working relationship with FIRE, but neither the attorney nor FIRE should be unduly criticized for making sure a statement issued for public consumption is polished.

On the question of whether FIRE did something wrong in "helping" Stevens with his statement: I don't think so. Public figures all the time make speeches and issue statements that (presumably) accurately reflect their opinions, and no one worries about who actually drafted the words. (It is rumored that this even applies to a certain inarticulate senior official of the U.S. government.) This is generally understood, and accepted.

It is interesting that when a public figure issues a book, however, readers are much more concerned about the role of the "coauthor" or ghost-writer than when the same person makes a speech. It appears that the circumstances greatly affect how "authentic" we expect a person's speech to be.

That's what this comes down to: the truth claim contained within quotation marks. It's one thing to paraphrase or characterize a client's thoughts, and quite another to represent an idealized, tactically crafted statement as a direct, presumably unedited, quote. That was the gist of this letter:

FIRE doesn't state that the client 'agrees' or 'meant to say was'..., they say, 'he said....', which is not actually true. It may be common legal practice to rewrite the client's statement to say what the lawyer can defend or attack more easily, but to this innocent, there appears to be a world of difference between what a client actually says and what a legal mind rewrites for them and puts into their mouth. If both sides of a legal complaint are rewritten by their legal advisers, the contest isn't going to be based on the truth. When is a quote a complete rewrite? .... It is not common knowledge that quotes aren't quotes when an advocate is involved, and there isn't any good reason for the reader not be informed that a new author has been introduced.

FIRE put words in [Stevens'] mouth - they made him a sympathetic, idealistic victim for the purpose of propaganda. The quotation marks are what damns FIRE, and it was a silly error to make because they could have said all they wanted or needed to say without quotes.

Question: if it is unimportant for defending the principle of free speech that the fellow's words were changed (which is what FIRE implies), then what is the argument in favor of having changed them, if not for reasons of propaganda?

I think that the quotes are pretty misleading, and I
think it's sad that FIRE do what they do. Still ... it is commonplace for legal organizations to craft statements on behalf of their clients, have their clients agree to them, and then publish them as if the words came from the clients' mouth. Which gets me to wondering just where one should draw a principled line ... the quoted Chris words seems to be over the top, but in the great balance of things, FIRE was just doing what all attorneys do being a mouthpiece for someone who obviously needs one. I guess the question I wrestle with is this: is Chris less deserving of the best representation because he is a verbal clutz? Is FIRE, as his advocate, bound to abandon custom and acceptable common practice because Chris is inarticulate? How far is it permissible to go in defense of a client? If a grossly inarticulate client and his representation collaborate on a position statement, and the client agrees that the statement represents his exact position, does he have the right to claim the words as his own? Do his representatives step over some boundary by representing their collaborative work as his words? What precedent is there for sorting these questions out?

UPDATE: One last letter, from a reader who will be entering law school in the fall:

I'm fairly sure I agree with you. The problem I have with FIRE "fixing up" Chris Steven's statements and presenting it as a direct quote is that it appears to be something of a conflict of interest. FIRE got involved to defend Steven's right to speak freely, and in the process has molded/edited/influenced/bowdlerized his speech so that it better serves their goal. This is tactically wise on the public relations and legal fronts, yet seems impure to FIRE's mission of advocating free speech no matter how disagreeable.

Had FIRE merely restated Stevens' point and not presented an ostensibly direct quote, this would be a non-issue. (And as it is I think it is fairly minor.)