Internet Defamation Suit Tests Online Anonymity

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."

From TFA:

[Sunburnt]

The site's founder, Jarret Cohen, the insurance agent, said the site merely provides a forum for free speech. "I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely, just as if they were to go to a town square and say whatever brilliant or foolish thoughts they have," Cohen said.

Except that isn't what you've created, you naive jackass. There is no anonymity in the town square: people speaking their "brilliant or foolish" (or slanderous and defamatory) thoughts are identifiable, and the repercussions for their actions can range from social disapproval to legal sanction. Blanket anonymity creates the exact fucking opposite environment from that of the town square. What Mr. Cohen has created rather resembles a public toilet. This is the same problem with news articles that rely entirely on anonymous sources to divulge personal details about the subject: how is the content any more credible than the random scrawlings of an interstate rest area?

Anonymity is one thing if there is the possibility of unjust sanction for free speech, as in the case of whistleblowing. But if major law firms are, apparently, making decisions about others' character based on a bunch of anonymous cowards on online forums, it just goes to show that no amount of expensive education can cure idiocy.

Of course, Congress is mostly a bunch of lawyers, and it's fun to imagine leading politicians being brought up on specious charges. Perhaps I'll have a change of heart if the president gets impeached, and the impeachment cites "A reputable source named Sunburnt on an anonymous Internet forum, who repeatedly asserts that the President secretly collaborates with the North Korean government."

i'ts like a school project for them

[circletimessquare]

while these women may be a tad bit litigiously minded, (caveat: i actually don't know what was said about them), they ARE Law School students for crying out loud. which tends to suggest that writing new case law rather than actual bruised egos is the order of the day

hey ladies: random pointless negative asocial retards is pretty much par for the course on internet posting boards, especially when done anonymously. if you post with any regularity on the intertubes, you will get trolled, violently and personally. it's a given. it's just hot air from ignorant asocial losers

but do you really want to enable the long arm of the law to go after those who might be posting anonymously for fear of oppressive use of force just because you don't like what some juvenile snarky dickwad said on a discussion board about you?

in other words, for the most part, anonymous posters are utter losers who don't deserve any protection from anyone. but i'd rather put up with their juvenile idiocy than expose the 1% who are posting anonymously for an actual good reason, such as criticism of lawsuit happy scientologists, or for the sake of corporate whistleblowers, or even those who would expose organized crime (want to be frightened by the exposure of whistleblowers wh oshould remain anonymous?: visit http://whosarat.com/ [whosarat.com]... nothing good can come of a site like that, ever)

so just put up with the juvenile dorks, ladies, please

Re:Serving the summons?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

We tried to free the slaves. And you fought us.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, dumbass.

Re:From TFA:

[morgan_greywolf]

Except that isn't what you've created, you naive jackass. There is no anonymity in the town square: people speaking their "brilliant or foolish" (or slanderous and defamatory) thoughts are identifiable, and the repercussions for their actions can range from social disapproval to legal sanction.

You are 100% correct. When are people going to learn that typing stuff and putting it out on the public Internet is the electronic equivalent of shouting things to the world? There is no anonymity; everything can be traced back to somebody given the time and resources. If you say something in writing and allow it to be published to the world in order to damage someone's reputation, that's libel. Pure and simple. Hiding behind a pseudonym doesn't make it legal or right. If you can't stand by what you say, then don't say it, least of all in a public forum!

Thank you, we now return to you to your normally-scheduled incoherent Slashdot ramblings.

Re:Serving the summons?

[Sunburnt]

Privacy has no place in a free society.

Really? I would assert that privacy is fundamental to the perpetuation of a free society. But this isn't an issue about privacy, it's about anonymity, which is different. I may privately think that another person molests children. I may even write this down in my diary, and I would maintain that it would be unethical for others to force me to reveal these completely private thoughts.

I certainly wouldn't have the ethical standing to publish this diary anonymously, however. Do you see the difference?

Re:Serving the summons?

[zarkill]

...or you're sitting there imagining horrors that aren't real to fill in the gaps of your ignorance and fear, and we need to get that sorted out right away before you do something stupid.

This line of thought seems like exactly the reason privacy is important. Because apparently there are people who think that "imagining horrors" is something that needs to be "sorted out" by some higher authority.

Ok, so say I'm imagining some horrors. What then? What do you propose should be done to me, to "sort me out"? You're assuming that I'm going to "do something stupid" so are you suggesting that my "ignorance and fear" should be corrected preemptively?

If I'm prone to imagining horrors, should I be submitted to some kind of corrective therapy, against my will, just to be sure that my ignorance and fear don't get the better of me? Even if I never really would do "something stupid" about it? What's wrong with letting me have my ignorance and fear? Who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't think or imagine?

Frankly, I think a world where privacy is unneeded would be great, but in such a world everyone would have to mind their own business. As long as there are people who believe in thoughtcrime, and people who want to "sort you out" before you "do something stupid", I think maybe privacy is something we should hang onto for just a bit longer.

Re:Serving the summons?

[Sunburnt]

If you're sitting around thinking that so and so is molesting children, either they are indeed molesting children, and we need to get that sorted out right away before it happens again, or you're sitting there imagining horrors that aren't real to fill in the gaps of your ignorance and fear, and we need to get that sorted out right away before you do something stupid.

Strange. I would think that a free society would be one that cannot assume, based on a person's private thoughts, that said person would "do something stupid." Nor, for that matter, would a free society be one where people may be investigated based on the private, groundless suspicions of others. A free society is not one that seeks to deal with every paranoid instance of its members' private thoughts.

Now, if I periodically saw other peoples' crying children leave the individual's house, or saw illegal child porn on display after being invited into their house, I certainly would have an obligation to have this "sorted out right away." Fact is, people have groundless suspicions about things every day, and a society with the right to get to the bottom of every such suspicion - even when the suspicious person understands that there is no tangible certainty - is the opposite of free.

Re:Why would law firms read this stuff anyway?

[Hrothgar The Great]

If you were the most brilliantly qualified candidate ever to apply for a position at a big company, I doubt they would use random anonymous message board comments in their decision of whether or not to hire you; after all, they've learned enough about you through your resume and your interview - they don't need any further information.

Unfortunately, in the real world, most people applying for jobs, especially for nice jobs at big companies, have to compete with many other people with very similar qualifications. A manager might see some of these defamatory comments (some of which, according to the article, were work related) and decide not to bother with you because they have five other candidates without that baggage. That seems to be what happened in this case.

I'm not saying I agree with this as a hiring practice, by the way. I think it's bullshit, and you wouldn't catch me doing it if I were in a position to hire someone. It's unquestionable that it does happen out there, though.

Re:you're confused

[Sunburnt]

everyone is anonymous on the internet. you and i aren't posting as anonymous cowards, but we're still anonymous: all you know of me is my moniker, and a few tid bits of information about who i am that i choose to disclose which may or may not be true

Right. Now, if you should disclose anonymously that you have been giving my prospective bosses fraudulent information that negatively affects me materially, prepare to lose that anonymity at a judge's order, unless you're technically savvy enough to truly conceal your identity. I doubt that last condition applies to a bunch of idiot law students.

go ahead and view this thread with the cutoff point of -1 for posts. cheek to jowl with some high level intellignet and witty comments, you will find the most utterly retarded and ignorant asocial negative bullshit

I always read Slashdot at -1, in fact, and you're absolutely correct.

in other words, welcome to the internet. you should try to familiarize yourself a little more with your chosen subject matter. there is no such thing as an identity on the internet.

Thanks for presuming that I am unfamiliar with the Internet, but your contention is incorrect. One's real ID is certainly traceable in most instances from an online posting, given the proper court authority and technology.

Also, we do have some form of ID on Slashdot. Mine's "Sunburnt (890890)". When you read a post and see my ID at the top, you might recall previous posts of mine and think, "Hey, this guy's usually pretty sharp and probably onto something here, I should credit this more than most other posts" or "Hey, this guy's usually a total jackass and is probably lying about everything in this post." On the other hand, if I post anonymously, you can't even look at my comment history to make such a determination. The concept of anonymity can be applied to varying degrees in diverse situations.

so rather than some rather naive and idealistic individuals expecting that all human speech somehow become only good on the internet,

How did you get that conviction out of my comments? I'm a bit too misanthropic to ever expect such a thing.

maybe instead some of you, like these litigious law students, need to develop a higher level of tolerance to simple pointlessly negative and useless juvenile snark...when you use a rest stop on the highway, and you see the retarded commentary on the walls, does it devastate you? emotionally damage you? no. you just roll your eyes and forget about it 10 seconds later. so why would the snarky juvenile idiocy damage you on the internet?

RTFA. The plaintiffs are specifically alleging material damages as a result of the posts in question. If anyone in this situation needs to adjust their credibility detectors, it's probably the hiring managers who apparently take this sort of juvenile shit-slinging seriously. (Not hard to believe, given their profession.)

you're completely wrong

[circletimessquare]

Right. Now, if you should disclose anonymously that you have been giving my prospective bosses fraudulent information that negatively affects me materially...

how does it affect you materially? juvenile snarky commentary about your sexuality affects you materially? are you a prostitute? if i say something negative about your tits on the internet, that's going to affect your job as a lawyer?! how?

now let's say some hypothetical retarded hiring manager is just as juvenile as one of the posters, and it DOES affected your ability to get hired at a firm

what?!

they idiocy of one retard vaildates the idiocy of another?!

i have another idea: MATURITY and an EXPECTATION OF MATURITY. that you would would expect a hiring manager to have the slightest bit of maturity to roll his eyes and ignore snarky comments about your tit size. and if he didn't do that, would you really want to work at a place like that? or, alternately, sue the company who didn't hire you! for not hiring you because some internet retard commented on your tits is much more acitonable than blindly suing essential internet negativity. you have better odds suing the rising and falling of the tides, such is the nature of the enemy you have chosen to fight

no, i have a better idea: grow the fuck up. your fascist every-comment-must-not-be-anonymous attitude reveals an immaturity on your own part: a fragile ego. this is your personality defect, this is your character flaw. and we who are secure enough in ourselves to roll our eyes at retarded juvenile comments on the internet will not give up the concept of anonymity for the sake of your fragile ego. instead, you will grow up. you will change. not us, and not the internet. understand?

it does not serve women's rights to empower juvenile retards on the internet. and you do understand you empower them by reacting to them rather than ignoring them, right? every woman who has ever lived has encountered retarded juvenile comments about them sexually. and 99% of them have hit on the proper response to a male idiot's snark: IGNORE IT. repsonding to it doesn't defeat them, it ENCOURAGES THEM. AND it reveals that you have a serious ego problem of your own

you don't defeat trolls by reacting to them, you defeat trolls by rising above them. you don't defeat losers by sinking to their level. and it is a pretty sad commentary on your own immaturity to be so threatened by such stupid mental pap

you cannot control juvenile retards. ever. you IGNORE them. and you can't expect them not to be anonymous. the slightest bit of technological sophistication and 1% more effort will allow someone to post completely anonymously. there are sites that offer ip obfuscation for free. for the sake of those who live under opporessive governments

and that make sme think of a parallel here: there are governments in this world who are afraid of free speech and a free press. who are afraid that anything negative their citizens might say about them represents a threat. this is not maturity, this is insecurity

and it is exactly the same root instinct, that these oppressive governments have, the same that you have as your insecurity on a personal level: the viewing of that which is not a threat to you as a threat to you, simply because it is a negative and directed at you (and is totally retarded)

these women who sue will make poor lawyers, to view as a threat that which essentially is not a threat to them at all. poor tactical thinking for a lawyer to have

it is a skill EVERYONE in life must possess: the ability to go through your day and brush off mindless negativity directed at you. to react to it is have a social maladaptation, and to encourage the retarded morons who attacked you negatively

grow up

Re:Serving the summons?

[Kadin2048]

How do you think Lincoln would have fared in the GOP of today? FIrst of all, he couldn't have raised 100mil, so he'd never have gotten the least bit of Republican attention. They'd also have had a problem with that whole "honest" business. Not a core GOP value.

Yeah but they've really have liked his suspension-of-habeas-corpus thing.

Re:Serving the summons?

[zarkill]

I really don't disagree with your main argument, in spite of your calling me a dumbass. One of your other posts made your point a little more succinctly, when you said:

These things must be done systematically. It must be a sea-change that affects everyone. I will support that sea change and participate in it willingly, but I'm not opening myself up all alone and being the target of our societies most corrupt elements, those who have the most to lose from what I'm proposing.

My point was basically the same; at this point in time, there are people who will take your information and your thoughts and use it against you. They will see the things you've done and the thoughts you've had, and they will "turn you out".

You're right, if there was a 100% complete sea-change in the attitudes of everyone in the world, privacy wouldn't be so important. But that's never going to happen so I say again, I would rather have a little privacy than let someone else decide whether my life violates some laws or morals that they hold dear.

Don't forget either... in 1984, Big Brother didn't spy on you. Big Brother didn't exist. Your neighbors spied on you. Your employer spied on you. Your wife and children spied on you.

Mod your own parents up. Mine are busy watching TV

[trippeh]

Has anyone brought up the whole Minority Report thing?

To what extent do we want to restrict privacy to the detriment of so called human rights? Who here is in favour of the patriot act?

Well, this lawsuit could have some serious precedent-setting potential. This could well remove the very anonymity that makes the internet so attractive to trolls, flamers, poets, artists, bloggers and all those other people who feel that they are safe out there because the everyday overly litigious yuppie can't figure out who they are.

Re:Why would law firms read this stuff anyway?

[oizfar]

you don't get it. The girls aren't actually worried about their jobs. They're graduating from yale law, they can work anywhere they want even if the libel was on the front page of the new york times. they are "testing" the limits of internet anonymity as the title suggests. This is the kind of geek thing that law students screw around with before they get into the real world and have to sue people for money instead of intellectual curiosity.

Re:i'ts like a school project for them

[Miseph]

I think the difference here is that there is a de facto double standard undermining the entire system. Specifically, so long as people can remain anonymous while brutally libeling others by name, it undermines everything. Anonymity needs to go out the window the second someone starts talking about another private citizen's private actions, especially when such speech is clearly intended to be detrimental to their career or obviously threatening physical harm.

Beyond that, threatening to rape and sodomize someone is not cool. Ever. I would hope that any decent admin would not only comply with the prosecution of civil criminal charges for such, but be proactive about contacting any relevant individuals or authorities. Civil liberties are not a shield for genuinely and unarguably criminal behavior.

Re:Serving the summons?

[Archangel Michael]

"Not a core GOP value."

I don't think this is limited to GOP, as the DEMs also have their issues. Just take a look at the members of congress (both parties), and see who's children are registered lobbyists on issues before congress. If you think that GWB has a low approval rating, and that is in and of itself grounds for impeachment, I would suggest that we impeach the entirety of congress, because the approval rating of congress is even lower than that of GWB.

The problem is, that everyone loves (or likes enough) their congressman, who brings home the bacon from DC, but hates everyone else's for doing exactly the same thing.

I do have a suggestion for the future. Vote third party. I'm Libertarian (big and little "L"), but quite honestly, i'd vote Green (YUCK), Peace n Freedom (Yuck), American Independent (Yuck), Natural Law Party (Yuck) rather than D or R, just to shake DC up. As long as you keep voting for D or R, you're gonna get the same thing as you have now. If you vote for change, and don't get it, you deserve what you get if you don't vote third party.

In fact, I dare say, that if you vote D or R expecting change, you are insane (literally). Only way to change things is to vote third party. Three or four third party congress critters might be enough to shake things up enough to cause a greater revolt.

Sadly, too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that there is only two choices.