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?"
Sitting behind a computer, typing, you don't hold back as much as when you talk to a persons face ... (I've seen a study about that, but i can't find it anymore) so yes, we'll have to accept trolling, it's inevitable.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
There are laws that deal with free speech going too far - they're called 'libel' and 'slander'. You'd think law students would know about this.
[Insert pithy quote here]
That really is the most god awful website i've seen in years, and putting aside the fact that the presentation is horrendous, I'm concerned that this is what passes for my fellow law students.....
"The cure to bad speech is more speech,"
can anyone say 'flamewar' ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Break out the popcorn and pull up a chair.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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...
If,
A) You're talking about an forum (electronic or otherwise) designed to promote freedom of expression, and holding that as one of your primary ideals,
and
B) You ask whether this is freedom of speech gone too far,
The answer is always, "no". Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Article = dumb. I RTFAs, but not in this case.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
> Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far...
There is no such thing as "limits on free speech" or "Free speech going too far". It either is free speech or it is not.
If it is libel that's a different thing, there are laws that regulate that.
A: We are a free country, free speech
B: Lawyers are assholes
A: You are stepping bounds on your freedom of speech, offensive comments are not included in it
B:
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
When I write letters to my local newspaper I have to provide a name and address, and they verify I am who I say I am before they publish my letter (and my name is attached). Another example can be found in the television/radio media where commercials have to specify who paid for them. Free speech is one thing, but anonymous free speech is a whole other matter. I believe that if someone is criticized (or praised for that matter) in a public forum, the name of the person doing the criticizing/praising should also be public.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
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.
No trolling isn't necessary to have insightful discussions.
PS. Macs suck.
:(){
But that's not the issue here - there is nothing wrong with criticising others in public, but if you actually read the article (it's a lot to ask, i know), there's a lot more at stake than make factual claims about an individuals shortcomings.
The inference in the article is that the protagonist got minimal call-backs and no offers as a result of what was said in postings (possibly anonymous) about her on the AutoAdmit law school admissions discussion board.
Goggling an applicant and finding pictures of them on their myspace site, smoking blunts and self-copulating is one thing.
If law firms reject otherwise stellar applicants on the basis of anonymous postings on a cheesy discussion forum, then they are stupid beyond words. Can you hear it?: "Oh she's top of her class at UPenn, just *blew* the doors off the interview, goddamn articulate, but I heard an anonymous rumour she cheated on her LSAT".
She best start looking for other employers, 'cause you don't want to work for people that have their heads so far up their ass that they'll pass up on the next Clarence Darrow because of what some anonymous shill said on the fscking Internet.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
It's actually a bit more complex than that. See for example: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga :l_VIII-gb:s_296//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_296"> these sections from the CCC.
...
Essentially, it's libel if you caused to be published something you don't reasonably know to be true
that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
So, yes, you can talk smack about people. It just has to be true and in the best interest of the audience. For example, if you commited a petty offence, say shop lifting, 10 years ago. And I go around your book signing tour [say you wrote a book on gardening or something] writing reviews that revealed this fact and caused you harm. That could be considered libelous, since while true, is not in the best interest of the public (e.g. who cares) and it causes you harm (section 298).
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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" >:)
Wait until after you graduate, pass the bar exam and have them in the position of being the opposition in court. Then you'll attack them with all the venomous, flaming invective you can muster- only somewhat politely and spelled a lot better.
I mean, it's hard to use, "ZOMG! U R TEH GAY H0M0 L00ZZOR! LAMOR!!!! LOL!!! " as a valid argument.
That website is not about "free speech" in the slightest. It is about generating ad revenue for its owners: revenue which would decline if users who deliberately set out to act like cocks were not offered safe harbour.
Really, it just combines a few popular online subjects - law career discussion and outlandish bigotry/racism/general abuse. Go look at any extremist forum, for example. You'll see hundreds of thousands of posts, each one serving up Google adverts.
And the site owners aren't championing free speech in fear of what all those law students could do if they felt their rights were collectively infringed - they are worried about traffic leaving the site. Simple as that. Applying strict moderation isn't going to bring out Gary Bupkis from Moronica State University all aflame in anger about his constitutional right to call Sheila Labiastein from Jeronimo College a filthy cock-sucking kykecunt who couldn't get into a university as prestigious as his which he pretends is Harvard or something...he's going to toddle off to some other online forum and passively boost ad revenues there.
Don't attribute to nobility what is clearly just commercial greed.
You can't really think that freedom of speech has gone too far. It can't go too far. It is either FREEDOM of speech or no freedom of speech at all there are no mid points.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
"or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community"
Possible answers which suit the FA:
1.Yes! And anyone who thinks differently doesn't understand what the internet is all about!
2.Insightful discussion? We're on slashdot, for gods' sake!
3.What' you mean; legal community? Their are online illegal communities too?
4.Goatse rulez!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
There is no such thing as "limits on free speech" or "Free speech going too far". It either is free speech or it is not.
Providing and guaranteeing it is one thing. It being something good and beneficial for society is something else. The latter requires a mature and well informed public. Otherwise, it becomes a brawl where whoever has the loudest voice wins.
as with everything freedom can go to far. your freedom ends, where the freedom of someone else begins. remember? there's only so much room for one person and there's billions of others too, that deserve some freedom.
does you definition of "freedom of speech" include the freedom to break laws/oaths too? like a doctor who's breaking his oath telling everyone of his funny patient stories, because he feels he can go as far as he wants with his freedom of speech? if it would harm another one's freedom you are not entitled to use your's. there's always compromise, even if some americans seem to be completely blinded by their constitution. remember, after all it's just a piece of paper with some words on it written by some other human, who lived ages ago (like the bible). just because it says so, you're not allowed to go rampage on others. that 's what common sense, ethics and morale is all about. think before you speak.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Trouble is, true free speech also requires intelligent listening.
If we could rely on people not to make important decisions without looking critically at the evidence, laws on defamation would not be necessary.
If your employer fires you because a.n. blogger accuses you of kitten huffing, then it is your employer who should be held accountable - not the teenage troll who doesn't know any better.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
Before you jump on the "obvious" answer, take a look at this thread (found only after 2 minutes of looking... I'm sure there's far worse on the site).
9
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=51069
Names, pictures, personal information, and enough sexist and racist comments to make my head hurt. Now tell me you'd be happy if that thread was the first thing that came up on Google for your name.
Free speech is one thing. To my untrained eyes, that looks like sexual harassment, and I'm sure there's some slander in there to be found. Even worse, from some of the comments I got the impression this type of thread is a popular "sport" on that forum...
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Ooooh! That's a good question.
I'm only going to dash off a quick response here because if I take the time to explore the topic fully I won't get any work done today. To be fair to the spirit of your inquiry, I'm not going to look at Wikipedia before I write this.
My working definition of trolling is "deliberate ignorance." To me, a troll isn't really a troll unless they (apparently) deliberately ignore obvious facts in evidence that contradict them. Admittedly, even this is a fluid definition. In an anti-gun-rights forum, saying "Guns kill people" isn't trolling because everyone agrees. In a pro-gun-rights forum, the same statement (out of any clarifying context) is a troll because, obviously, no gun can pull its own trigger.
For another example that moves beyond the realm of religion, I once had a discussion online about appropriate speed limits on the highway. I wanted to be open and genuinely communicative, so I tried to define terms and find common ground. I made a simple statement that two objects could never collide if they traveled the same speed and stayed on parallel courses and that traffic accidents could only happen if one of those two conditions was not met. This is so simple that it should be no more controversial than the notion that gravity makes things fall down. Yet the person I was talking to staunchly refused to agree to even this most basic statement and continued to wail emotionally about the human cost of traffic accidents. At that point, because he was unwilling to stipulate to obvious facts that would give us a common ground from which to proceed with discussion, I could only brand him a troll and abandon the conversation.
Trolls don't listen. They put their fingers in their ears and hum when presented with facts, as opposed to logically arguing their points by showing how my interpretation of those facts is flawed. That's deliberate ignorance and the hallmark of a troll.
Yeah, there's more to it, especially the part about how you're not really trolling unless you're trying to elicit a response. But I gotta go to work, now. Thanks for the good question.
Well, section 298 doesn't apply to this matter, since that's Canadian law, not US law. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel. US libel laws are far more permissive than those of Commonwealth countries, and notably more permissive than those of the UK.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, considering that:
1) Free speech does include the right to insult, berate, and otherwise bitch at or about any person or concept.
2) Lawyers, in general, are competitive and confrontational; ie: assholes.
3) Assholes in large groups contain one or more 'whiny' assholes.
It can be shown that:
There will be at least one 'whiny' asshole who is bitching and whining about how bad things are in assholeland, and who for some reason, can't or won't deal with the competitive/confrontational attitudes he meets on the same professional asshole level as the rest of them.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
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.
Screw Penny Arcade. I hate those bastards. Smug, self-assured pricks with attitude have no right to a voice...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o