Law Student Web Forum: Free Speech Gone too Far? 264
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?"
Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
http://truecenterpoint.com/ce/essentials2.html [truecenterpoint.com]
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Penny Arcade (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Penny Arcade (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Penny Arcade (Score:2)
You're telling me that "Normal Person + Anonymitiy + Audience != Total Fuckwad"?
Wow. Tell that to the AC's.
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
When Free Speech goes to far (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
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)
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:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:3, Funny)
Complain to the Bar Examiners (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Of course not. (Score:2)
Ignore it? (Score:2)
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I'd lose the anonymity of the writer aspect of it, and leave it alone. Free speech is one thing, but if you are going to write it, you should be held accountable for what you say (ummm... Write).
But too address the original commentary, free speech in and of itself doesn't go too far, but there are always people who will abuse a system, the more free the system, the more likely the abuse, it's just human nature, there is always someone out there with ethics and/or morals that don't meet the basic set of expectations that idealists seem to have.
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
That's the nice thing about the Law; it really cuts down on those grey areas. Either it's libel or slander, or it's not. Either it's stalking, or it's not. Either it's a crime, or it's not. If it's not, you can say it.
Now, sometimes it can be difficult to determine if it's a crime or not, because we have such a byzantine legal system, but thankfully, we have people who spend their lives studying it, and can render informed opinions on whether things may or may not be illegal. They're called lawyers, and I don't think this guy has them in short supply.
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
Addendum: For this rule, blogs don't count as 'reading'
Re:When Free Speech goes to far (Score:2)
RTFA. (Score:2)
Might be stalking. (Score:2)
1997 called... (Score:4, Funny)
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:1997 called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1997 called... (Score:2)
Is it called "Hell"? (Score:2)
I haven't even been to the site yet, but let me get this straight: it uses forum software that's worse than Slashdot, and it's full of lawyers.
Oh, gee, where do I sign up for that?
Good (Score:2)
What's wrong with that? Are people not allowed to talk about other people in public anymore?
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
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)
Re:Good (Score:2)
If you've been slandered (or libelled in this case) then the relevant laws are applicable whatever the policy of the forum's owner is. The only issue that I can see from the article is that it's letting anonymous users post these comments, and at that point I'd assume that the owner becomes responsible for proving that it wasn't him that made the comment.
They do lie. Here's an example. (Score:2)
Aside from that, I'm pretty sure it's considered some kind of threatening to post pictures of someone, post their full name and email address, and go on rapturously about how you'd really like to "hate-fuck" them. But I'll have to check with my legal staff to see if that's actually out of bounds.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Slander anyone? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Slander anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Break out the popcorn and pull up a chair.
Re:Slander anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Slander anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Slander anyone? (Score:2)
AIK
flamewar (Score:4, Insightful)
can anyone say 'flamewar' ?
Welcome to the Interweb, law students (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Welcome to the Interweb, law students (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the Interweb, law students (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the Interweb, law students (Score:2)
Looks like yet another melodramatic internet pissing contest to me--a bunch of jerkass future lawyers, womynists, drama queens, frat boys, and self-obsessed narcissists battling it out over who has the bigger blog. I propose that we ship them all immediately to Iraq for a quick lesson in what REALLY matters.
-Eric
Womynists? (Score:2)
perhaps (Score:2)
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 has to deal with in his own way.
Free speech gone too far? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:An interesting contrast (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:An interesting contrast (Score:2)
Anonymity (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Anonymity (Score:2)
Ad Hominem (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ad Hominem (Score:2)
I would modify that slightly. I suspect lawyers are taught effective argument techniques. Sometimes, ad hominem attacks are effective. This may be one of those times. I wouldn't know, I didn't read the article.
Remember, the joke is that juries are composed of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. There may be a large difference between a good argument technique, and an effective argument technique. The fact that most lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom is of course beside the point.
This isn't an issue of free speech... (Score:4, Informative)
No balance. (Score:2)
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.
Re:No balance. (Score:2)
Question: does this site allow properly anonymous posting, or is it some journalist referring to a login that isn't your actual name as 'anonymous'?
If it's the latter, this is a non story. If it's the former, AutoAdmit needs to disallow anon posting; it's almost always a bad idea (unless you're, say, a popular news site. I do get a kick out of Slashdot's ACs)
-1 Troll (Score:5, Funny)
No trolling isn't necessary to have insightful discussions.
PS. Macs suck.
As a law student ... (Score:2)
Re:As a law student ... (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, it's hard to use, "ZOMG! U R TEH GAY H0M0 L00ZZOR! LAMOR!!!! LOL!!! " as a valid argument.
Re:As a law student ... (Score:2)
Re:As a law student ... (Score:2)
Speaking as another law student...
if your fellow students are all that keeps you sane, you need to connect with some people outside of law school. Law school is a self-reinforcing echo chamber. The ultimate result is stuff like the idiocy on those boards.
Shout out to the Evening Students (Score:2)
I originally went to law school with the intention of transferring to the day division after my 2nd year, to strike a balance between ROI on the degree (no income + loads of debt is not attractive to me). I'm about to finish my 2nd year and will not transfer because the environment in the evening class is a ton more educational and rewarding. There are actually an abundance of good people in the evening program, and these are the people I want to work with later and call my colleagues. I don't put myself in the same group because I'm younger than most of them, don't have to balance a family in with school (a career, yes, but so do they), but the group dynamic is ENTIRELY different than the day classes I've taken.
If you want to avoid this crap, go in the evenings and be prepared to be a decent, mature person. Sure, message boards like that one will probably tell you an evening degree is worthless, but that just keeps evening school all the better. Law review pads a resume very well, as does a high GPA, but if you add an established career to those credentials anyone who tells you you can't compete for the top jobs is out of their mind.
Are Law Firms Stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Are Law Firms Stupid? (Score:2)
Re:Are Law Firms Stupid? (Score:2)
Well, I work at UPenn, and lemme tell you: if she's applying for jobs here, she's going to have a very hard time figuring out what's going on.
Of course, that's true of many lawfirms, too.
Really, I think it's funny that a journalist gave credence to the kind of paranoia people have about their online rep - you know, the one that truly doesn't matter?
Re:Are Law Firms Stupid? (Score:2)
There's at least seven other "Bryan Elliott"'s with a more apparent web presence than I. And one of 'em, "J. Bryan Elliott" is a North Carolina lawyer.
I just think that's funny.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
The point has been missed. (Score:2, Insightful)
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're kidding, right? (Score:2)
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 discussion boards so meaningless; without real-world examples, most discussions are just the proverbial angels dancing on the head of a pin.
If there's any crowd that would both benefit from and be able to not get too insulted by gloves-off commentary, it SHOULD be lawyers.
The definition of trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Too far (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
an ironic answer! (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Seems like its more about sexism than free speech (Score:2)
Not allowed to hurt someone's feelings? (Score:2)
If the speech does not libel or slander then who should care what is said?
If people on forums are worried about what is said about them then they need to either get out or shape up.
Pretty soon it will be a hate crime to say anything bad about anyone, then what right to speech will you have?
"Free speech NEVER goes too far!" (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
What's the ratio? (Score:2)
"You slashed that guy's tires!"
"Yeah, but I work at the soup kitchen on Fridays, so I think we're about even."
No, that's nonsense. (Score:2)
It would be trivial to ban the posting of contact information (such as phone numbers, addresses, email addresses) without affecting at all the legitimate criticism of firms, employers and so forth. It would be trivial to ban the posting of photos taken from anywhere other than official (firm or school) websites without affecting at all the legitimate criticism of firms, employers and so forth. The fact that I could think of these rules in about thirty seconds shows that the Xoxo admins, apart from putting in controls to prevent crapflooding, really don't care about these issues.
But more importantly, it's not my goddamn problem. If the board is being used for evil, the onus is on the administrators there to put a stop to it. Whining about how hard it is to fix the board so it's not a haven for hate-fucking troglodytes doesn't cut any mustard.
Forums Can't Choose Their Interactive Audience (Score:2)
This isn't free speech. That's retarded. (Score:2)
I doubt posting pictures of people and making rude comments about them is illegal. Dick move, yes. Possible target of legal action, very unlikely. However, posting their contact information, talking about how you're going to "hate-fuck" them, yes that person in particular, and encouraging your fellow board members to go stalk them is utterly beyond the pale, and it's retarded to defend it on "free speech" grounds. Threatening and stalking aren't simple expressions of an opinion or idea, and it demeans the idea to pretend that they are.
I just hope that the people who run the board get Googlebombed all to hell, and have to explain why they encouraged that shit to prospective employers.
No, it's not. That doesn't work. (Score:2)
Fancy words from the site admins don't mean a damn thing. There are measures that can be put in place--rules against posting personal information, against libel and slander, and so on, enforced by bans--but the admins refuse to do so. The "spirit of the board" which they (and you) are so wedded to appears to be a spirit of utter lawlessness, which is pretty odd, given that it's a forum for incipient lawyers. The "spirit of the board" is apparently the sort of spirit that enjoys libel and stalking. I'm not really going to shed a tear if I see that violated. So... is there an rape-threat/interesting-content ratio that I need to be aware of? What does this ratio need to rise to for me to be able to complain? Apparently you or the site admins are arbiters of this ratio; perhaps you can enlighten me.
Also, I'm going to feed you a bucket of fine wine that I've shit in. Just a little shit, though. The vast majority of the bucket has nothing to do with shit, but the philosophy that tolerates the shit is the same one that brought you that fine wine.
Reprehensible (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it will likely take a lawsuit to get AutoAdmit reveal the ip addresses of the posters. Sadly, this kind of irresponsibility of AutoAdmit will likely lead to end of liability exemption for message board operators in the long run. How long to the daughter of Senator gets this kind of treatment and the Senator makes it a personal crusade to strip the exemption?
How is this different from RL? (Score:2)
Is it wrong and/or illegal to sit around in a coffee-shop talking about your opinions of other people by name?Is letting people do that letting free speech go too far? It seems to me that this question and the one raised must have one and the same answer.
Free speech is useful (Score:2)
As long as the person clearly dictates what's fact regarding a person and what's the writer's/speaker's opinions there shouldn't be a problem.
Of course - facts can be wrong - and if so, a correction has to be made.
And if the writer/speaker does incorrect claims it's more a question of credibility of the writer/speaker than of the targeted person.
And - of course - there are facts that are more pressing for a person than other facts. There are certainly answers to these cases too, and I'm thinking of two examples:
- Bill Clinton - In the Lewinsky affair - both YES and NO were the wrong answers; Correct answer should have been that whatever happened were a question between him and his wife and maybe Monica Lewinsky too, but nobody else. (The rest of the world did get a good laugh here!)
- Arnold Schwartzenegger - Clearly admit that he had done wrong. Even if he did admit being rude he was clearly taking the edge off every future accusations. It's worth some respect.
Misrepresenting facts - may it be through image manipulation or through incorrect statements will cause credibility questions in the end. It may not show up the next day or the next week, but it will show up. Only very few misrepresentations will be hidden forever. If an image is manipulated and presented as a manipulated image - then there will be no issue with that picture. Removing features from an image is far less critical in most cases than adding incorrect information. (of course it depends on what the image represents). An example is that a person may be cut from an image as a quick fix if a person leaves an organization and there are practical reasons for not taking a new picture. Or if the background doesn't fit it's better to replace it with a neutral background. On the other hand removing parts of a X-ray image describing cracks in a nuclear plant is never right.Of course - abusing the rights is never right.
Trolling? (Score:2)
If someone is worthy of attack, attacking them isn't trolling.
Sure, it permits trolling. But it also permits legitimate conversations that you otherwise could not have.
If someone wanted to attack me for being, say, an anti-semite, they would be full of shit. But if they wanted to attack me for being an arrogant ass, well, I'd have a hard time assembling a coherent counterargument :)
Perhaps I'm just sensitive about this particular word. But then, people accuse me of trolling all the time.
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Obvious metaphor? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:2)
OTHERWISE SINCE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER YELLING THIS WOULD MAKE ME WIN!
*rolls eyes*
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:2)
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Obvious metaphor? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Anonymity on the Internet is worthless (Score:2)
I smell irony!
Re:Jack Thompson (Score:2)
Now, if you had said, "Jack Thompson Rapes Babies", there would be a discussion; I personally think it's unlikely that Mr. Thompson rapes babies, but without evidence to the contrary, who knows?
Re:Free Speech Is Always Free (Score:2)
I mean, free speech is one thing, but who thought it was a good idea to let LAWYERS speak?! No good can come of this.