http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1529267420070616

I hope the women get thoer justice. Calling someone names is quite different from telling lies about people's academic or work experience, esp if it leads to them losing out on potential jobs.

Also, what is really discomforting is that these users making these remarks are lawyers or future laywers. SCARY.

TWW better learn from this!

The manager of the site refused to remove the posts, saying it was free-speech. Stupid move. Does it mean I can spread rumors saying Bush takes bribes? Does that fall under free speech? Of course not.

I hope the posters are prosecuted and punished, and have their careers ruined. I also hope the manager is fined some amount of money so that he can learn what "free-speech" means.

Quote :

"U.S. Internet defamation suit tests online anonymity By Jason Szep 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 Bitch 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.""

6/17/2007 12:10:31 AM

These bitches probably did something stupid

6/17/2007 12:15:42 AM

^ no u

6/17/2007 12:38:30 AM

that sounds just like TWW every day.

i mean, if the article didnt say Yale or Stanford or Law or "prestigious"... i would have thought for sure it was TWW in the news.

6/17/2007 2:00:46 AM

I'm wondering how the other users knew about them and their real names.

I LOLed at this part though:

Quote :

"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 Bitch to Enter Yale Law."

I would have to know more about what happened exactly to really say if they deserve retribution, but in general, I would think the term "troll" would be lost on a judge and most jurors.

6/17/2007 2:06:44 AM

they were probably their ex-boyfriends and their (the ex-bfs') friends.

6/17/2007 2:11:50 AM

Defamation laws are dubious to begin with. This is even worse than normal. I hope they throw it out of court.

Free speech FTW, n00bz.

6/18/2007 3:58:50 PM

sounds to me that universities (or anyone for that matter) souldn't take proofless rumors on message boards seriously.

whatever damage was done will probably pale in comparison to the negative publicity this creates.

6/18/2007 4:07:32 PM

^ and what happens when someone at a university doesn't take something on a messageboard seriously yet it turns out to be true? it's safer for the university to cover its ass, so that's what they do. Plus, those making the decisions don't understand internet messageboards. that just how it is.

for the folks who don't think that internet slander is anything to worry about, what the hell is wrong with you? Why should someone be able to injuriously slander you on the internet but not do so in person or in regular print? Slander and libel should be treated seriously, no matter what the medium. While we all want to make sure that the internet isn't needlessly censored or regulated by people who don't know what the hell they are doing, I think there is plenty of room to prevent such censorship while also attacking and removing from it slander and lies that only serve to harm people.

6/18/2007 8:59:54 PM

Quote :

"Slander and libel should be treated seriously, no matter what the medium."

No, they shouldn't be. People should be free to say, type, and write whatever they want to.

6/18/2007 10:09:21 PM

even when it harms another and the substance of the harming speech is entirely untrue?

6/18/2007 10:30:54 PM

^ Yes.

6/18/2007 10:41:38 PM

Quote :

"and what happens when someone at a university doesn't take something on a messageboard seriously yet it turns out to be true? it's safer for the university to cover its ass, so that's what they do"

It seems to me that most of the accusations made would be easily checked for accuracy, and the ones such as the lesbian relationship shouldn't matter anyway.....anyone that bases an important decision on an internet message board is pretty clueless imo.

6/19/2007 9:08:43 AM

^exactly
even more ridiculous are the folks actually influenced by what they read on said message boards, when they are obviously libel.... makes one doubt the competence of those swayed

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason : e]

6/19/2007 11:12:20 AM

^ doesn't matter when the person is swayed and it affects a decision such as a job offer. WE might be able to see it as clearly bullshit, but the litmus test for slander has nothing to do with "can some random person tell it's a lie." Rather, it's "is it untrue?"

^^ Why spend the time checking the accusations when you have plenty of other candidates with absolutely no such questionable items? just mark that person off the list and move on, that's how many companies operate.

^^^ then you are an idiot. If you are all about protecting people's rights, then what about the slandered person's right not to be affected by lies when it comes to seeking a job? is that right unimportant? is it more important to protect the right to be an absolute asshole?

6/19/2007 6:44:10 PM

the verdict will be "pwnt"

6/19/2007 7:44:40 PM

Quote :

"If you are all about protecting people's rights, then what about the slandered person's right not to be affected by lies when it comes to seeking a job?"

How is that a right? Slander is bad, obviously, but not bad enough to warrant bringing force (the law) into the equation. For slander to hurt a person, someone else has to believe it. I'd much rather live in a society in which people get slandered out of jobs than in one where folks pay thousands of dollars for calling someone a rapist.

Quote :

"is that right unimportant?"

It's not a right.

Quote :

"is it more important to protect the right to be an absolute asshole?"

Yes. Freedom of speech should be absolute.

6/20/2007 12:43:53 PM

well, then, I should be able to lie in court.

6/20/2007 9:21:08 PM

^^ so you would be OK with living in a society where the following acts are protected by law:

1) Yelling fire in a movie theatre
2) Lying about someone to destroy their career and reputation
3) Shouting on streets "Kill all Muslims/Jews/Gays/etc" and stirring up a mob, which may or may not lead to violence/killings

Wow.

I usually agree with you on most things, but if you think the above things are ok to do, you are on crack.

6/20/2007 9:27:42 PM

Yes to #2. No doubt about it. I'm not sure about the others.

Quote :

"I usually agree with you on most things, but if you think the above things are ok to do, you are on crack."

Slander is, of course, a bad thing. That doesn't always mean the law should get involved.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 9:54 PM. Reason : d]

6/20/2007 9:52:29 PM

You must be trolling, because no one could actually think that.

6/20/2007 9:56:32 PM

Quote :

"You must be trolling, because no one could actually think that."

Yawn. That's what folks always say when they hear or read my opinions.

I assure you that I'm not trolling. I believe in the freedom of speech. Period.

6/20/2007 10:03:43 PM

I found the hole, and I am going to make it bigger and destroy you!

Quote :

"I'm not sure about the others."

Why not? Didn't you say:

Quote :

"Freedom of speech should be absolute."

I will tell you why you are "not sure" about the others! Because you would feel uneasy that they led to harm (#1, #3), or COULD lead to harm. Well, how is #2 different? That could lead to serious harm too, and one could argue, much worse harm than the other two.

#1 and #3 could lead to physical harm, however, most physical harm can be healed, unless somone is permanently damaged or killed. #2 probably won't lead to physical harm, but could lead to irreparable harm to one's character, so much so that they can nevr get a job, never have friends, never have a family, and are shunned by wherever they live.

You think that's OK? I don't see a difference.

Either stay consistent (ABSOLUTE freedom of speech), or condemn ALL speech that can and does do harm.

6/20/2007 10:04:04 PM

Quote :

"I will tell you why you are "not sure" about the others! Because you would feel uneasy that they led to harm (#1, #3), or COULD lead to harm. Well, how is #2 different? That could lead to serious harm too, and one could argue, much worse harm than the other two."

One would be wrong to argue that. Losing a job isn't as bad as being killed. Perhaps more importantly, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater causes an immediate, instinctive reaction that could cause harm to one or more people. If I called you a rapist, your boss would have to think about it before firing you. There's the difference.

Quote :

"#2 probably won't lead to physical harm, but could lead to irreparable harm to one's character, so much so that they can nevr get a job, never have friends, never have a family, and are shunned by wherever they live."

If your friends and family abandon you over lies, you were probably living in a castle made of sand to begin with.

Quote :

"Either stay consistent (ABSOLUTE freedom of speech), or condemn ALL speech that can and does do harm."

The second option most likely leads to a police state. What decides what "harm" is? How direct does the connection have to be? I'm inclined to say #1 and #3 don't call for force, but I'm still not completely sure. If that upsets you, so be it.

6/20/2007 10:18:24 PM

Remember what I said earler:

I found the hole, and I am going to make it bigger and destroy you!

Well, YOU HAVE BEEN CRUSHED... I WIN!!!

6/20/2007 10:40:46 PM

Mission accomplished, right Trap?

6/20/2007 10:46:45 PM

YES YES YES!!!

IRAQ THIS THREAD IS MINE!!!

NO MORE INSURGENTS!!!

6/20/2007 10:51:38 PM

Quote :

"even more ridiculous are the folks actually influenced by what they read on said message boards"

[/thread]

Quote :

"People should be free to say, type, and write whatever they want to."

Quote :

" Freedom of speech should be absolute."

Quote :

"I assure you that I'm not trolling. I believe in the freedom of speech"

hear hear.

Quote :

"I should be able to lie in court."

Yes, you should, and can.
Dishonesty does not require speech.
If you lie, it isn't the actual speech that is prohibited, it the intentional misrepresentation of truth.
A mute could nod yes or no and still be lying.
Prosecute the lying, not the speech. (They're not one and the same, morons)

Quote :

"1) Yelling fire in a movie theatre"

Again, it is not the speech that is problematic here.
It is the dishonesty. (Assuming that they're lying about the fire)
If there really is a fire, OF COURSE YOU ARE GOING TO YELL "FIRE"!

Quote :

"2) Lying about someone to destroy their career and reputation"

As long as the source remains anonymous, they shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.
If it's a named source, then again,
IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL ACT OF SPEAKING OR WRITING THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
SPEECH IS HARMLESS.
THE PROBLEM IS DISHONESTY

Quote :

"3) Shouting on streets "Kill all Muslims/Jews/Gays/etc" and stirring up a mob, which may or may not lead to violence/killings"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Period.
* * * cough cough Salman Rushdie cough * * *

Quote :

"Free speech FTW, n00bz."

6/25/2007 8:03:11 AM