Slashdot Mirror
LSU Law School Sues Student Over Website
hij writes: "The NY Times has an article that gives details about how the LSU Law School is suing one of its own students for a web site he maintains. The web site contains information about the Law School and also includes articles that are critical of the Law School."
The site doesn't pop right out as a criticism site. If he named the site lsulawsucks.com and put his criticisms on the front page, I'd say that LSU was being a bully. But, the front page of his site has all sorts of helpful links to admissions, grading scale conversions, etc. that one would EXPECT to find on an official university page. He doesn't even have a disclaimer on the front page. Based on that, I'd say that his site could definitely be confused with an official LSU site.
He should change his site to make it completely obvious that it's not an LSU site. If it's a criticism site, then he should drop the helpful links to various university departments.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
does to good people.
The school does not have a case using copyright infringement for commercial gain. As someone who has studied copyright law and the internet, I can say that they have no case. They are trying to contend that his site was confusing partially b/c it used school colors...ridiculous. Most judges would throw this out.
The professors at the school are taking themselves and their "academic reputation" way to seriously. The only thing this lawsuit will do is get alot of good press for the student.
Anyone (myself included) who has been blackballed by faculty in a University setting knows that some professors really do buy into the "Ivory Tower" idea. It's sad but true.
[off topic...the nytimes article mentions a suit against pensacolachristianschool.com. You should check it out if you want to know more about schools suing regarding web content.]
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm actually planning on going to law school next year, and this was one of the places that my radar picked up. I'm really glad they did this now, so I, and everyone else who ever thought of applying here, won't have to waste time, money, and energy figuring out that this is not the kind of legal education I want.
I wish more institutes of higher learning would identify themselves as being on the "never go here under any circumstances ever" list by attacking their own students like this.
Lawyers are the biggest abusers of the law, I've noticed.
They will probably offer him a position to teach constitutional law since its clear the current professors do not know it.
He hurt our feelings! Hit a little too close to the truth these days and people get all bent out of shape. Apparently these folks have yet to realize that the negative publicity generated by taking action against their guy gives them 10 times more of a black eye than if they'd just ignored him. Most of the people considering the school would never have heard of this guy's site, but now the whole thing's been plastered all over the New York Times. And who wouldn't look at that and think twice, really?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I wonder why LSU did not use a dispute resolution provider instead of a district court. Would have been the right thing to do in the academic world.
Anyway, I wish Mr. Dorhauer the best for his exam.
Line 9: Argument of type SIGNATURE expected.
I'd say this site didn't make itself obviously clear that it was a student site, and not the official site. There is the link at the bottom, however it could be more obvious.
It isn't a commerical site, so he's probably safe from the claims depending on that, however if the school invokes the DMCA, then he's dead in the water I suppose?
Kill that stupid law!
Hacking the Network
Had they talked to him before filing suit, they wouldn't have been setting an appropriate example for all of their students. Sue first. Ask questions later.
Yes, I'm being facetious (mostly) but kneejerk internet domain lawsuits seem to be the rule, not the exception. Why talk about it when you can probably bully the domain owner into a settlement?
That seems to be the rule for most corporate lawsuits anyway.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
OK, let's do a quick comparison.
lsulaw.com- Clear layout, loads fast
- Consistent navigation
- Clearly labelled links to all major departments of the School
- Clearly labelled links to information about the school
- Clear links to other Web resources of use to law students
- Works well in all browsers including text browsers
law.lsu.comIn other words, his is a reasonably competent, reasonably professional Web site, accurately describing the school, and theirs is an incompetent, unusable pile of dross.
I think that's what the quarrel is about, actually.
It's worth pointing out that because of the poor provision for disabled access, http://www.law.lsu.edu/ would be illegal in most of Europe.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
His assertion that his site is "emphatically noncommercial" would resonate better with me if he used an address that didn't end in .com... a .org or .info address would better express the site's nature.
--Dan
Web Tips
...but it doesn't mean it's not obnoxious. If you have something to say about someone else, you have every right to do so, I feel, as long as what you say isn't stated as fact, but merely opinion.
But he took the school colors, made a site with a name that could be confused with the school's main site, and even put links to the main site for further confusion (deliberate or not).
People forget that, while you might have something to say, whether you think it's "helpful" to get the word out about this terrible school (which is utter B.S. - but that's my opinion), it doesn't mean you can be an ass about it...that doesn't help anyone. Look beyond the first amendment to something more basic - like fairness, honesty, compassion. If you've got something to say, say it, don't confuse people. Of course, he IS a law student...