No doubt as punishment for my sins, I earn my living as an attorney.
Much of the law is fairly nonsensical, but some elements of it do make sense. One rule that has always been understandable to me is the rule against hearsay. Basically it states that no testimony is accepted in court based upon what Person A heard Person B say. Person B has to testify in court for his testimony to be admitted into evidence. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, some of them substantial, but by and large if a person’s testimony is going to be admitted into evidence, that person has to testify at the trial. This has always struck me as reasonable. If a person’s testimony is critical to establishing a fact, then have him testify and be subject to cross-examination.
I think this would also be a good rule for all bloggers to observe by and large. Do not rely upon statements allegedly made by someone, but rather go to the source of the statement. Christopher Blosser, one of the contributors to this blog, has a post at his blog Against the Grain, which notes the pitfalls that can occur when a blogger decides that the rule against hearsay should be for courts only.