Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...umber=2&sp=true

BOSTON (Reuters) - It bills itself as the world's "most prestigious
college discussion board," giving a glimpse into law school admissions
policies, post-graduate social networking and the hiring practices of
major law firms.

But the AudoAdmit site, widely used by law students for information on
schools and firms, is also known as a venue for racist and sexist
remarks and career-damaging rumors.

Now it's at the heart of a defamation lawsuit that legal experts say
could test the anonymity of the Internet.

After facing lewd comments and threats by posters, two women at Yale Law
School filed a suit on June 8 in U.S. District Court in New Haven,
Connecticut, that includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of the site,
which has generated more than 7 million posts since 2004.

According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll"
began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the
women in the suit, entitled "Stupid XXXXX to Enter Yale Law." Another
threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said.

The plaintiff, a respected Stanford university graduate identified only
as "Doe I" in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer
of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became
more menacing.

Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users
to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain
admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale
administrator, the court papers said.

The plaintiff said she believes the harassing remarks, which lasted
nearly two years, cost her an important summer internship. After
interviewing with 16 firms, she received only four call-backs and
ultimately had zero offers -- a result considered unusual given her
qualifications.

Another woman, identified as Doe II, endured similar attacks. The two,
who say they suffered substantial "psychological and economic injury,"
also sued a former manager of the site because he refused to remove
disparaging messages. The manager had cited free-speech protections.

LIFTING THE MASK

"The harassment they were subjected to was quite grotesque," said Brian
Leiter, a professor at university of Texas Law School. "Any judge who
looks at this is going to be really shocked, and particularly shocked
because these appear to be law students."

The suit is being watched closely to see if the posters are unmasked, a
step that could make anonymous chat room users more circumspect. It also
underlines the growing difficulty of protecting reputations online as
the Web is used increasingly to screen prospective employees and
romantic partners.

"They can't hide behind anonymity while they are saying these scurrilous
and menacing things," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the
University of California, Los Angeles.

He said the site was not liable under federal protections that are more
lenient on Web sites than TV and newspapers. Prosecuting the manager
could also be difficult because he did not write the posts, Volokh
added. But the anonymous posters look liable and their careers could be
jeopardized, he said.

"This ought to be a warning to be people that if you say things that are
not just rude but arguably libelous and potentially threatening and
perhaps actionable on those grounds then their identity might be
unmasked," he said.

Finding and identifying the posters -- including one called "The
Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah" -- could be tough but is not impossible. The
process involves subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers for
records, and then more subpoenas to companies, institutions or people
identified on those records.

"I've said in my blog the most vile posters on that board are two
subpoenas away from being outed," said Leiter. "This led to much
amusement by the anonymous posters on the board.

"But they are about to find out that this is how it works."



--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

macarro wrote:

Much snippage....

> The suit is being watched closely to see if the posters are unmasked, a
> step that could make anonymous chat room users more circumspect. It also

If they're unmasked, they weren't anonymous to begin with.

This is where the distinction becomes even more important. Free speech is
a right, and vital to a free society. Words *are* power because they
control beliefs. Information is the currency of control, even more than
currency itself.

If the powers that be can convince people there's no channels through
which to speak without fear of retribution, even by using these miscreants
and their technical weaknesses as an example, then their control over our
beliefs and ultimately our minds is that much stronger. Misinformation
works against us by convincing us there's a penalty attached to *all*
anonymous speech.

I'll bet a year's pay if they do happen to catch these miscreants it will
make the news. If they can't, because they used truly anonymous methods,
we'll hear nothing.

> "They can't hide behind anonymity while they are saying these scurrilous
> and menacing things," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the
> university of California, Los Angeles.

Yes Eugene, they can. That's what "anonymity" means.

I would have imagined someone bright enough to attain the title of
professor would know this already, and realize that while we may not agree
with everything everyone says it's essential to protect the right for them
to say it even if it means we have to cowboy up and take the bad with the
good. And as far as the bad goes in this instance there's a very simple
solution... just don't God damned listen to it. It's really that simple.
Ignore the rabid trolls and they'll die of starvation. Problem solved.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

 
>
> Yes Eugene, they can. That's what "anonymity" means.
>
> I would have imagined someone bright enough to attain the title of
> professor would know this already,

Well he is a  professor of law not computer science.


--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

macarro wrote:
 
>
> Well he is a  professor of law not computer science.

It doesn't take a scientist of any type to comprehend the difference.
And to anyone smart enough that they can teach at this level it should be
obvious.

Assuming the school where he works isn't totally FUBAR and hiring retards
as teachers that is. ;)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:36:45 +0100, macarro wrote:

> "They can't hide behind anonymity while they are saying these scurrilous
> and menacing things," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the
> university of California, Los Angeles.

Moron.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:06:53 -0400, Ari wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:36:45 +0100, macarro wrote:
> 
>
> Moron.

If they ever took away the ability to post anonymously it would really
cramp your style.

Puppet

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

traveller 66 wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:06:53 -0400, Ari wrote:
> 
>
> If they ever took away the ability to post anonymously it would really
> cramp your style.

Just a couple blubberings ago you were blubbering about how Ari always
posts using his real name.

Moron.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:27:40 +0200 (CEST), Non scrivetemi wrote:

> traveller 66 wrote:
> 
>
> Just a couple blubberings ago you were blubbering about how Ari always
> posts using his real name.
>
> Moron.

It's hard for morons to keep up, by definition.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:48:10 -0800, traveller 66 wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:06:53 -0400, Ari wrote:
> 
>
> If they ever took away the ability to post anonymously it would really
> cramp your style.

Is 66 your last name? No? Then shut the XXXX up.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Ari wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:48:10 -0800, traveller 66 wrote:
> 
>
> Is 66 your last name?

I'm pretty sure it's the combined IQ of everyone living in his trailer
park.

And their pets.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]