Some things require no additional commentary

What Jill said.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. Lucy Stone
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    That makes me feel physically ill. There are no words.

  2. Feliza Navidad
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    It offends my principles and my sense of decency to intimidate people who are exercising free speech.
    This really pisses me off. What the hell does SHE know about decency and principles?
    This is coming from the same woman who obsessed about Jessica’s breasts and urged as all to “take a closer look” at them.
    I think it’s pretty indecent and unprincipled to tear someone down like that for no reason. But what do I know, right?

  3. Posted June 14, 2007 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    I can’t think of a better way for the plaintiffs to handle this than they are. It seems absurd to me to criticize them.

  4. natmusk
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Everytime time I see something about althouse I’m amazed but her reaction to this has topped it all.
    These guys basically have a “let’s talk about how much we want to rape girls” club and the women are told to ignore it. I could never ignore something like that if I knew these people had my number, knew my class schedule and knew where I worked out. This shows that they are putting way more effort into it than just “expressing sexual desire” please…when they talk about anything sexual with the girls they are using the sex act as a form of domination and humiliation of the woman.
    ugh, i’m going to go scream into a pillow

  5. rose_hasty
    Posted June 14, 2007 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    It’s insane! I’d heard of this Althouse weirdo. British newspapers covered her rediculous insults to Jessica but I didn’t realise how infuriatingly thick she is. What the hell does she think a threat is? I have complained a million times to facebook.com about public comments posted about me because I reported a man who raped me. My family have also complained multiple times but they won’t take it down. However, that does not even compare to this. It’s appauling.

  6. Fenriswolf
    Posted June 15, 2007 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    Ditto Lucy. Where do you start? I feel nauseas :(

  7. Posted June 15, 2007 at 4:35 am | Permalink

    I’m somewhat fanatical when it comes to the protection of the First Amendment, and it absolutely amazes me that anyone sees a genuine First Amendment problem in the AutoAdmit case.
    I’ve read the entire complaint filed against AutoAdmit, and there’s nothing even remotely protected in there. Publishing knowingly false statements against someone who isn’t even a public figure isn’t even remotely a borderline case.
    Encouraging people to stalk a woman and take her picture without her knowledge and/or permission is simply not what the First Amendment is there for (we’re not even talking about paparazzi going after a celebrity here, for chrissake; this is a bunch of schmucks with camera phones harrassing a woman who is just trying to live her life).
    Threatening to rape a woman (well, gang rape her, considering how many different threats) isn’t protected, either. No one can read that crap and come away thinking there was a chance they weren’t serious about it.
    The people who have criticised these women as litigous for coming forward neglect to mention the part where both of them repeatedly complained of the threats and defamatory statements to the management of the site, and the management threatened to post their complaints online if they continued complaining.
    Oh yeah, and then there’s using someone’s photograph without consent for advertising purposes and use of the women’s copyrighted photographs without even trying to ask consent.
    So where’s the part where this becomes a First Amendment issue?

  8. Posted June 15, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    If I’m not mistaken, Althouse actually teaches Constitutional Law. Which makes her tenuous grasp on the First Amendment particularly shocking.
    The First Amendment, just as everything else in the Constitution (except for certain public-accommodations provisions in the Reconstruction Amendments), protects you only from government interference. So while these guys couldn’t be arrested, necessarily, for their speech (though there are some restrictions on speech that are not important here), they’re not protected by the First Amendment from the private consequences of their actions.
    And one of those consequences is getting sued for defamatory speech.
    I get tired enough explaining this to run-of-the-mill trolls. I’m appalled that not one but TWO law professors (Glenn Reynolds) are signing on to this dipshittery.

  9. Posted June 16, 2007 at 12:31 am | Permalink

    The First Amendment, just as everything else in the Constitution (except for certain public-accommodations provisions in the Reconstruction Amendments), protects you only from government interference. So while these guys couldn’t be arrested, necessarily, for their speech (though there are some restrictions on speech that are not important here), they’re not protected by the First Amendment from the private consequences of their actions.

    And one of those consequences is getting sued for defamatory speech.

    That’s not quite true, strictly speaking. The Free Speech/Press Clause does protect you from private suits based on the content of speech, on the theory that the involvement of the judiciary in silencing/punishing speech would constitute impermissible State action (e.g., by interpreting a general statute, such as a libel or defamation statute, in a manner that would reach protected speech).
    The issue isn’t that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech and expression from litigation by private parties. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed many times that it does (e.g., NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, NY Times v. Sullivan). The issue is that the causes of action alleged in the AutoAdmit complaint are so far outside of the realm of protected speech, especially since these women were by no means public figures, that there’s hardly even room for debate on the matter.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

169 queries. 1.072 seconds