Still Want To Say That?

[xrayzebra]

Looks like some folks may want to think before they call
people names or make some disparaging remarks. It will
be interesting to see how this turns out. Note the type
of site. Lawyers.

U.S. Internet defamation suit tests online anonymity
Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:25AM EDT

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 do ents, 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, en led "Stupid to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the do ents 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 cir spect. 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 iden y 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, ins utions 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."

[FromWayDowntown]

Looks like some folks may want to think before they call people names or make some disparaging remarks. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Note the type of site. Lawyers.

Well, unless someone's comments threaten another's livelihood or promise to visit physical harm upon another, I can't imagine that those comments would ever be actionable. I also don't think that a single stray remark would ever be sufficient.

But are you contending that these posters should be able to get away with routinely castigating others? Do you think that any random person on the internet should be able to threaten careers (by asking others to pass along disparaging comments about the targets) and promising bodily harm?

This is just a routine defamation suit, so don't give me any First Amendment nonsense; the government isn't limiting anyone's right to speak, and there is no doubt that defamatory speech isn't always protected. The only difference between this and other defamation suits is that the actual iden y of the speakers hasn't yet been revealed. I can't think of a single reason that these speakers should be allowed to remain anonymous. If they wanted to remain anonymous, they shouldn't have threatened anyone.

[xrayzebra]

^^Hmmmm, first amendment rights, defamation suits,
defamatory speech.....kinda thin skinned aren't you?

I posted this as a matter of information and a little humor.
Obviously you took it to heart. Are you a lawyer?

I was kinda thinking about some of the remarks made on this
forum about folks sexual preferences. Some might take
offense at what their preferences are.

Of course I look at it as if you cant stand the heat get out of
the kitchen. You know rocks and stones............

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^Hmmmm, first amendment rights, defamation suits,
defamatory speech.....kinda thin skinned aren't you?

I posted this as a matter of information and a little humor.
Obviously you took it to heart. Are you a lawyer?

I was kinda thinking about some of the remarks made on this
forum about folks sexual preferences. Some might take
offense at what their preferences are.

Of course I look at it as if you cant stand the heat get out of
the kitchen. You know rocks and stones............

Ray we already know you hate gays.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^Hmmmm, first amendment rights, defamation suits, defamatory speech.....kinda thin skinned aren't you?

I'm not thinned-skinned; I'm just refuting the notion that the suit reported about in the story is somehow frivolous, which seemed to be the implication in your original post.

I was kinda thinking about some of the remarks made on this forum about folks sexual preferences. Some might take offense at what their preferences are.

And those statements wouldn't be actionable even if this lawsuit is successful. The suit isn't about someone's feelings being hurt; its about one person threatening another, both physically and financially. When someone here starts threatening to call other's bosses (or potential bosses) and making untrue statements that might cause such bosses to fire or not hire those individuals, then we might have a lawsuit on our hands.

Of course I look at it as if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. You know rocks and stones............

So, I guess you're cool with the idea that I could (if I could find out such information) go to someone's boss and make absolutely untrue statements about that person, urging the boss to fire him or her without facing any consequences for my actions?

If so, can you tell me please where you work, xray? Thanks.

[medstudent]

You're wasting your time FWD. He likes underaged girls and gay bashing.

He's cool with a lot of immoral ideas despite his facade of moral cer ude

[xrayzebra]

You're wasting your time FWD. He likes underaged girls and gay bashing.

He's cool with a lot of immoral ideas despite his facade of moral cer ude

Is this an actionable statement? Attacking my values.
I might want to get a job somewhere. Underage females
is criminal and a punishable offense of many years. And gay bashing could very well be punishable as a
hate crime. It
could very well stop me from running for office or getting
a job.

[Mr. Peabody]

Is this an actionable statement?

Well, truth is a defense, so it's probably not actionable.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m