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.

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: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.

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.

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: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: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...