U.S. Internet defamation suit tests online anonymity

[Herman Munster]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

BOSTON (Reuters) - It bills itself as the world's "most prestigious college discussion board," giving a glimpse into law school admissions policies, post-graduate social networking and the hiring practices of major law firms. But the AudoAdmit site, widely used by law students for information on schools and firms, is also known as a venue for racist and sexist remarks and career-damaging rumors.

Now it's at the heart of a defamation lawsuit that legal experts say could test the anonymity of the Internet. After facing lewd comments and threats by posters, two women at Yale Law School filed a suit on June 8 in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, that includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of the site, which has generated more than 7 million posts since 2004.

According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit, entitled "Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said. The plaintiff, a respected Stanford University graduate identified only as "Doe I" in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became more menacing.

Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator, the court papers said.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. ahhh. the evil side of the internets...

and no-account-stupid people. :eyes:

[MADem]

4. I wonder if they're so stupid that they don't use a proxy server when tossing these bombs, though

I suppose we will find out eventually.

[Kingshakabobo]

2. I'm a little confused.

Did the defendants defame the screen name or the actual persons? Can you defame a screen name?......or do you have to name names?

Interesting.

[MADem]

5. No, the actual PERSON. You don't apply for a summer internship under your screen name.

Apparently, the baaastids got very personal, and slanderous. Hell hath no fury like a jerk scorned, perhaps?

After facing lewd comments and threats by posters, two women at Yale Law School filed a suit on June 8 in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, that includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of the site, which has generated more than 7 million posts since 2004.

According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit, entitled "Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to rape and sodomize her...The plaintiff, a respected Stanford University graduate identified only as "Doe I" in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became more menacing.

Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator...The plaintiff said she believes the harassing remarks, which lasted nearly two years, cost her an important summer internship. After interviewing with 16 firms, she received only four call-backs and ultimately had zero offers -- a result considered unusual given her qualifications.

Another woman, identified as Doe II, endured similar attacks. The two, who say they suffered substantial "psychological and economic injury," also sued a former manager of the site because he refused to remove disparaging messages. The manager had cited free-speech protections.


"The harassment they were subjected to was quite grotesque," said Brian Leiter, a professor at University of Texas Law School. "Any judge who looks at this is going to be really shocked, and particularly shocked because these appear to be law students."

[Kingshakabobo]

7. I guess I'm still confused......

Was STANFORDtroll calling them out by their real names on an anonymous discussion board? Where the plaintiffs NOT anonymous on the discussion board? The reason I am asking is there are subpoenas for "28 anonymous users".......were some people NOT anonymous?

The article isn't clear - or I'm extra obtuse today...:)

I know the law is pretty clear that you CAN defame someone, by name, on a discussion board.......but can you defame a screen name? If it's the latter, it's an interesting case. If it's the former, it's a run-of-the-mill case with the added twist of discovering anonymous names.

[MADem]

8. Yes--but he wasn't talking TO them, but ABOUT them. Here, let me give you an example

Suppose you and I live in the same town, you're Fred Flintsone, I am Barney Rubble. We both work at the quarry.

On the Quarry chat board, I take the name BIG ROCK and under a cloak of anonymity, start telling everyone that FRED FLINTSTONE is a wuss, he sexually molests both Pebbles and Dino the dog, and the entire town of Bedrock is screwing his wife, Wilma. Since you, Fred, are interested in quarry business as well, you log on to this professional discussion board and discover to your horror that some bozo named KING ROCK has created a thread with your name in the subject line and is talking about you and your family BY NAME in an horrific way on this professional message board.

The site in question is one for LAW STUDENTS. Personally, I think the site owners are being shits. If they would simply post a few simple rules, and comply with reasonable requests to pull plainly objectionable material, this whole situation wouldn't be decided in court--courts which, lately, are a crap shoot--you could get an old "normal" judge, or you could end up in front of a crazy BushCo judge. And if this shit goes to the Supremes, hell, we may as well use our home addresses as our screen names, eh?

[Kingshakabobo]

9. Thanks for taking the time to splain it to me.

I guess I would be more curious to see how actionable, if at all, defamation/libel would be against screen-names.

Would it still be actionable if they defamed the screen name of a rather well known, but still relatively anonymous, poster? What if it was in a relatively small 'on-line community' where some people knew the names behind handles - I'm guessing that was the case here......not a hundred thousand member forum.

My on-line screen persona is completely anonymous so slandering me would be next to impossible.........but say I started making loathsome accusations about a prominent DUer who uses their 'handle' on several other boards. I wonder what kind of case can be made regarding defamation. What if that person was known to some but not others -say they met several people at 'meet ups' - would that be taken in to consideration?



I agree on your judge comment. They could end up in front of some federalist society or Regent University graduate.

[MADem]

3. I've always said these Ivy League and so-called "top tier" schools were OVERRATED

All I can say is, Harvard Law not only accepted, but GRADUATED, Gonzo. Yale undergrad and Harvard Biz spit out the Monkey. And now, we learn of shitbird nitwits from Stanford. How charming.

This is rather like a MYSPACE equivalent for law students, tossing nasty high school insults at the law school level.

Shit, no wonder it's hard to find decent legal representation. They're all a bunch of Goodlings and Gonzos in training, apparently.

What a bunch of asswipes. In this environment, the government would just LOVE to be able to increase their ability to monitor the activities of individuals on the internet, and these trollish jerks are giving them the opening to so do.

[entanglement]

6. Threats of violence, rape and sodomy aren't protected speech

n/t