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?"

Comments

Yeah

[polar red]

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.

Re:Yeah

[polar red]

ah, i found something :
http://truecenterpoint.com/ce/essentials2.html

When Free Speech goes to far

[rlp]

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.

Re:When Free Speech goes to far

[baptiste]

It's not just libel and slander - it's stalking. These guys go after any woman asking that her picture be taken down from these contests like a pack of rabid dogs. They were following these girls into the gym and at class taking cellphone pictures of them, etc.

Check out http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/07/w apo-calls-out-law-school-pervs/

Problem is, guess how much traction any of these women would get going to the police trying to get them to go after these guys.

Re:When Free Speech goes to far

[rlp]

> Making statements of fact (i.e. telling the truth) it is not defamation, libel, or slander.

Why does society need to be protected from people making truthful statements? (Aside from issues of trade secrets and national security - which I doubt apply here).

1997 called...

[REBloomfield]

It wants it's forum software back...

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.....

flamewar

[polar red]

"The cure to bad speech is more speech,"
can anyone say 'flamewar' ?

Re:Slander anyone?

[GreyPoopon]

Won't it be ironic if lawyers discussing lawsuits start slandering each other on a lawyer based blog and end up suing each other.

Break out the popcorn and pull up a chair.

Re:Obvious metaphor?

[AchiIIe]

> 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:

An interesting contrast

[LaughingCoder]

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.

Re:An interesting contrast

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, there are sound historical reasons for protecting anonymity; sometimes anonymous free speech is the only free speech, because if people know who you are, Bad Things will happen. Much of the writing and discussion that led up to the American Revolution was done under pseudonyms, sometimes obvious, sometimes not; otherwise the result would have been a whole bunch of hangings and no USA. Whether that would have been a desirable outcome or not depends on your perspective, I suppose. ;)

Obviously this isn't one of those cases. These law students are idiots, and law firms that make hiring decisions based on their flamefests aren't any better.

[shrug] I'm one of the few people on /. who doesn't use a pseudonym, and my name isn't an especially common one; anyone who wants to find out what I think can do so with a couple of minutes of Googling. I've noticed that since I started using my real name online in most places, my own online writing has become more civilized; the reason I'm not especially concerned about losing a potential future job over something I said online is because I try not to say stupid things online, and anyone who'd refuse to hire me based on polite, reasonable expressions of opinion isn't someone I'd want to work for anyway. But this is a self-imposed condition, and if I were a whistleblower or a revolutionary, of course I'd try to remain anonymous, and be damned glad that there are ways to do so.

If I didn't make it clear above, I am in no way comparing these idiot law students to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Just saying that the same conditions which allow anonymous communication of genuine importance will inevitably be exploited by morons; it's a price we should be willing to pay.

This isn't an issue of free speech...

[jdcool88]

While Internet forums do fall under the region of "free speech", some of the things mentioned in the article are definitely illegal activities.

In scores of messages, the users disparage individuals by name or other personally identifying information. Some of the messages included false claims about sexual activity and diseases.

The chats sometimes include photos taken from women's Facebook pages, and in the Yale student's case, one person threatened to sexually violate her. Another participant claimed to be the student, making it appear that she was taking part in the iscussion.

Let's see, defamation, sexual harassment, threats, identity theft - how much do you need? It's one thing to troll, but a completely different thing to personally attack someone.

-1 Troll

[Bob54321]

is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion

No trolling isn't necessary to have insightful discussions.

PS. Macs suck.

Re:Good

[REBloomfield]

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.

Are Law Firms Stupid?

[vic-traill]

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.

Re:Good

[tomstdenis]

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

Re:Obvious metaphor?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I would disagree with that-- if the outcome was purely determined by who yelled louder that would be true, but outcomes are rarely determined by that in any medium, let alone online.
OTHERWISE SINCE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER YELLING THIS WOULD MAKE ME WIN!

THINK AGAIN, YOU BUTTMUNCHING LOSER!!!!!

Complain to the Bar Examiners

[ubuwalker31]

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:

http://www.pabarexam.org/FAQ/handbook/Character_Fi tness/Page_03.htm

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.

"Free speech NEVER goes too far!"

[Z0mb1eman]

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).

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=510699

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...

Re:Good

[Red Flayer]

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).

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.

Re:Obvious metaphor?

[Fordiman]

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.

Re:Penny Arcade

[eno2001]

Screw Penny Arcade. I hate those bastards. Smug, self-assured pricks with attitude have no right to a voice...