Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Law Student Web Forum: Free Speech Gone too Far?

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Mar 08, 2007 07:51 AM
from the sticks-and-stones dept.
The Internet
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?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Internet Defamation Suit Tests Online Anonymity 249 comments
The Xoxo Reader writes "Reuters reports that two women at Yale Law School have filed suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against an administrator and 28 anonymous posters on AutoAdmit (a.k.a. Xoxohth), a popular law student discussion site. Experts are watching to see if the suit will unmask the posters, who are identified in the complaint only by their pseudonyms. Since AutoAdmit's administrators have previously said that they do not retain IP logs of posters, identifying the defendants may test the limits of the legal system and anonymity on the Internet. So far, one method tried was to post the summons on the message board itself and ask the defendants to step forward. The controversy leading to this lawsuit was previously discussed on Slashdot."
[+] Subpoena Sought For Browsed News Articles 172 comments
The Xoxo Reader writes "A new filing in the Autoadmit Internet defamation lawsuit (previously discussed here on two occasions) reveals how the plaintiffs' lawyers have attempted to discover the identities of the defendants, who posted under pseudonyms on a message board without IP logging. The defendants had posted links and excerpts of several Web pages that mention the plaintiffs, including a Washington Post article, a college scholarship announcement, and a federal court opinion. Now the plaintiffs are asking those Web sites for logs of everybody who accessed those articles in the hours before the allegedly defamatory content was posted. (All the more reason to read the web through Google cache!) The plantiff's motion for expedited discovery includes copies of the lawyers' letters to hosting providers, ISPs, and others. It also includes replies from the recipients, many of whom point out that the lawyers' requests are technically impossible to fulfill. No matter; the plaintiffs are asking the court to issue subpoenas anyway. This thread contains a summary of the letters in the filing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Law Student Web Forum: Free Speech Gone too Far? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Yeah (Score:5, Informative)

    by polar red (215081) on Thursday March 08 2007, @07:58AM (#18274910)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday March 08 2007, @07:59AM (#18274922)
    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.

    • 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.

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

      • Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rlp (11898) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:10AM (#18275572)
        > 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).

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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, w

    • Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:5, Informative)

      by baptiste (256004) <mike&baptiste,us> on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:37AM (#18275268) Homepage Journal
      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/ [feministe.us]

      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.

      • 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.
        A lot I'd imagine. I mean it's not like law school graduates are above the law.... oh wait.

      • Complain to the Bar Examiners (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ubuwalker31 (1009137) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:46AM (#18276014)
        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 [pabarexam.org]

        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.

  • 1997 called... (Score:4, Funny)

    by REBloomfield (550182) <rebloomfield@gmail.com> on Thursday March 08 2007, @07:59AM (#18274924)
    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.....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goaway (82658)
      You know, apart from all the ads, and the excessive clicking needed to actually get to the post contents, which it shares with most modern forums, this is actually a very nice and readable layout. At least compared to phpbb and its ilk with a million useless stats printed all over the page, along with avatars and signatures and other usesless visual clutter that ends up leaving room for two or three actual sentences of user content per screen.

  • The message board...allows its users to discuss, criticize, and attack other law students and lawyers by name.

    What's wrong with that? Are people not allowed to talk about other people in public anymore?

    • Not under English Law at the very least: one should not defame an individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.
      • Doesn't that involve you saying something that's not true (or more precisely, under UK law, something that you can't prove to be true)?

        As I understand it (IANAL) there's nothing legally stopping you making factual statements, however harmful, about someone in public.

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

          by REBloomfield (550182) <rebloomfield@gmail.com> on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:24AM (#18275136)
          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.

      • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

        by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:26AM (#18275162) Homepage
        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 [slashdot.org]"> 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:Good (Score:4, Informative)

          by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:55AM (#18276110) Journal

          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.

  • allows its users to discuss, criticize, and attack other law students and lawyers by name.

    There is a fine line between expressing one's opinion and slander. IANAL, but if I would bet some of the free speech will cross into the "communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." (wikipedia).

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

    • 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.
    • Actually, it's libel in this context.
    • I would point out that unlike software companies (ie Microsoft - which is regularly panned by name) Lawyers generally do business under their legal name - rather than under a company facade. There are lawyers - such as John Edwards - whose business is largely chasing ambulances. Criticising what they do, and the effects on society is important, and names are a critical part of lawyering.

      AIK

  • flamewar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by polar red (215081) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:05AM (#18274970)
    "The cure to bad speech is more speech,"
    can anyone say 'flamewar' ?

  • Welcome to the Interweb, law students (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jakoz (696484) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:07AM (#18274992)
    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...
  • 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?

    I have not read the article so I'm taking a blind shot at this.

    If the "free speech" takes the form of slander or threats it has gone too far. If not I don't think there would be a problem with it.

    Blind trolling of message boards can devalue their legitimacy, that's something any administrator of such a forum ha
  • 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.

  • An interesting contrast (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LaughingCoder (914424) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:12AM (#18275036)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:53AM (#18275414) Homepage Journal
      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.

    • 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.

      Khrushchev was giving a speech about Stalin once, and someone in the crowd yelled out why he didn't do anything to stop him. Khrushchev quickly barked out, "Who said that?!" The crowd remained silent as he glared over them. "Now you understand why I didn't speak up," was his reply.

      Anonymity on the internet is a good thing. It protects fr

  • Ad Hominem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Paulrothrock (685079) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:13AM (#18275046) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • This isn't an issue of free speech... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdcool88 (954991) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:16AM (#18275070)
    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.
  • You can't throw names and "facts" in the wild and hide behind anonymity.

    There's simply no balance in this, and open to abuse. If you wanna call names, put your name behind your words, and if this is free speech, the laws will protect you from further repercussions.

    Of course, laws aren't perfect, but total chaos is a lot less perfect.

  • -1 Troll (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bob54321 (911744) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:18AM (#18275094)

    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.
  • ... my fellow students are about all that keeps me sane. I can't imagine attacking them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

  • Are Law Firms Stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vic-traill (1038742) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:25AM (#18275150)

    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.

  • If what you say is true... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:31AM (#18275198) Homepage
    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" >:)
  • 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 fr

  • 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

    First off, discussing/criticizing/attacking others by name isn't necessarily trolling. Sure, even a reasonable discussion criticizing named parties will be viewed by those parties as not just attacking but also trolling. That doesn't make it so. The LACK of names and specifics is what makes many dis

      • 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 ant

  • Too far (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:44AM (#18275336)
    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.
  • "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!

  • "Free speech NEVER goes too far!" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:48AM (#18276048) Homepage
    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 [xoxohth.com]

    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AchiIIe (974900) on Thursday March 08 2007, @08:12AM (#18275034)
      > 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:

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by itsdapead (734413)

        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.

        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 an

          • Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:5, Funny)

            by Bastard of Subhumani (827601) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:20AM (#18275712) Journal

            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!!!!!

    • Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Fordiman (689627) <fordiman.gmail@com> on Thursday March 08 2007, @10:27AM (#18276516) Homepage Journal
      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.