Slashdot Mirror
Law Student Web Forum: Free Speech Gone too Far?
The Xoxo Reader writes "Today's Washington Post carries a front-page article on the internet message board AutoAdmit (a.k.a. Xoxohth), which proclaims itself the "most prestigious law school discussion board in the world." The message board has recently come under fire for emphasizing a free speech policy that allows its users to discuss, criticize, and attack other law students and lawyers by name. Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far, or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community?"
This is about 0% different to any other forum on the web. Law students might kick up a stink about it, but that's what they do. They want to change the world. But I have one in the extended family... the thing about them is that 95% of the way they change the world is for the worse. What can they do? They can break down the laws that hold society together. They can even (*gasp*) help to make new ones. It is their job. If they did it well, they get a pay raise ("hey... I can make PARTNER one day!") and a slap on the back. And society is generally the worse off for their efforts. Their shortsighted personal run for glory helped them, so everything is fine. Good for them if they get upset. The only difference between them and everyone else is that they naively think that they can do something about it. The forum should just make all posting anonymous and move their servers offshore, just to stick it up them. ...and yeah.... there are a few good lawyers. But the vast majority of people on here, as in real life, don't respect what you do...
Discussion of others is fine. Criticism of others is okay, too. But I thought lawyers were taught good argument techniques, and that ad hominem attacks aren't part of making a good argument.
But maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Why wouldn't they be allowed to make truthful, but pointed comments, about others? In general, the sort of people who can't deal with this sort of thing are not big fans of freedom of speech. Given the fact that there is a law professor at Uni Wisconsin Madison who is being attacked for "racist speech" when no one even has any direct quotes yet of what he even said, let alone any context, I think the legal profession and education system need to be opened up to the real world where hurt feelings are your problem, and you have to respond to others instead of crying to mommy bureaucrat. How about all free speech fans start a new movement, a new underground movement to thicken up people's skin or terrorize them into not attacking free speech? Everytime someone gets teary-eyed over hearing someone make a "bigoted" comment, says something they don't like, or anything else like that and they seriously try to stop that person from working or having an otherwise peaceful life... *POW* right in the kisser. Do it again, *POW* right in the kisser.
I'm not entirely joking. I'd love the irony of a "brownshirts for the first amendment" >:)
And those are largely stupid laws in light of the right to free speech. Also, those laws are in light that prior dominant forms of media did not give equal weight to all perspectives such that a false claim could not be as easily countered; it's rare that a newspaper or tv news gives truly equal time to, say, an alleged criminal versus the prosecutor (to demonstrate unequal weight in the news, not that this applies directly here).
Furthermore, do you honestly believe these thoughts aren't already present, whispered between colleagues, or present in cliquish groups? The reality is that in professional schools such as law and medicine, the institution returns to something more like high school environment than college or a post-doc. I've seen people destroyed by whispered rumors, that I'd much rather have the asses stand up and state them so that they can be shut down or seen for what they are--a bunch of bellyaching or mean-spirited asses.
Not to mention, most institutions have policies where such cases are dealt with behind closed doors and information suppressed; private universities have historically kept many things under wraps. For example, the medical school I attended frequently ignored transgressions. Any transgression they felt was high enough might go on your record, but that had was held private and not under general review. At the U of Chicago, which I also attended, I know directly of at least 3 cases where things where shoved under the rugs that were brought to the attention of the institution--2 were not legitimate (1 was a prof mocking another prof who was in a huff because she was in the wrong room and was being unprofessional about giving up the space--she turned around and called his actions sexist, despite 90+ people saw the ongoings; the other was one student badmouthing another student amongst friends and when the one being harmed stood up, "privacy" concerns came up--it's not a private issue (even by law) if you're telling a slew of friends who then distribute the info outward), while 1 was relevant (lit a fire in his dorm room with scorch marks on the ceiling and still he was boasting about it publicly).
I'd rather have statements out in the open, so the people can address them. As a person who has been attacked and frequently returned the favor for my views, I'd much rather be able to address them and see the underbelly of the people and/or institution than be blindfolded and unaware; my perspective of various institutions have been shaped by these perspectives and I'm better for it, because I see how nasty people can be--if you naively think that a computer allows an indifferent perspective and people to unleash what they wouldn't say otherwise in public, you'd be wrong, as they still think and say those things, often deliberately in circles and kept from you.
If your a law student, and you are having a serious problem with another student that is documented and you have witnesses, most States have character & fitness committees that you can complain too:
i tness/Page_03.htm
http://www.pabarexam.org/FAQ/handbook/Character_F
Taking this action would prevent them from becoming licensed to practice law.
In case you don't already know, Attorneys don't have full free speech rights. Attorney's have a Code of Professional Conduct which limits the things they can say, since they are Officer's of the Court. Any sort of behavior or speech which would tend to cause the entire legal profession to be seen in a bad light, would probably be grounds for punishment by the disciplinary board.
Anonymity on the internet is a good thing. It protects free speech in a consistent manner. Yes, the downside is you get trolling, but it seems a small price to pay when the alternative is a knock on your door when you speak your mind.