After a period in high school/college where I wanted to teach, I decided that instead, I wanted to go into law. In hindsight, it makes sense – autistic people have very highly developed senses of fairness and justice. However, something that has also helped me: the law is almost never black and white. And autistic thinking is almost never not. (At least, mine went through a period where everything was one or the other, no middle ground.) The law has helped me see things in terms of shades of grey instead of absolutes. Some idiots still profess astonishment that an autist can be an attorney, or they accuse me of not “really” being autistic when I say I got through law school, to which I usually reply pungently: it’s like, you want me to show you my diagnosis and my J.D., asshole? Despite anyone’s astonishment, I am a fully licensed attorney in the state of Illinois, and I greatly enjoy debating points of law which may be very murky indeed.
That said, there are some times when the law is pretty clear cut. I’ve started a sort of satellite blog called Law In The Comments, designed to deal with provisions in law that get brought up in internet comments a lot. My first post deals with Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty, and why the First Amendment doesn’t apply to him. I thought I’d include the link here, since this kind of thing might very well be just as interesting to my readers as it is to me: Constitutional Law For Dummies, or Why Phil Robertson Is S.O.L. Enjoy. Or ignore, as you see fit.