Ugh. What a bunch of scumbags! And these are our future lawyers? It’s really comforting to know.
Can Jill et al take legal action against them for posting pictures and personal information or harassment or something?

It would beyond my competence to comment on New York or federal law, but this 2006 article seems to have some information about cyberstalking prosecution and remedies.

I read this piece over at Feministe. The anonymity of the internet emboldens closet racists and sexists something awful--I hope their hateful words come back to haunt them.

Also, Ann Althouse is an idiot.

sojourner, one of the problems here is that AutoAdmit and other web sites won't tell anyone who "them" is. These sites have very limited legal responsibility for content posted by users and pride themselves on protection of anonymous free speech--thus this means they don't have to moderate the discussions, take down offensive content, or otherwise take responsibility for what is posted there. It sucks, and it's a controvesial position they're taking, but legally it's tough to make them change anything.

There is an amazing number of crude, racist, sexist people at top law schools. There are also many people who think it's "funny" and "ironic" to spout racist and sexist rhetoric because they think everyone knows they are kidding. Some of them are, and some of them are using humor to mask their views because they know that otherwise those views are unacceptable.

I'm nowhere near as high profile as Jill, but I'm now wondering if my law school life was observed and analyzed on autoadmit as well. It gives me the creeps.

I agree with Jenny, the anonymous nature of internet only gives places of refuge to these "people" who can't come out and say these things in public (anymore) but they can unleash a torrent of hate online and expose their victims identities while theirs are "protected."

While you can track users through their IP address it's a long road toward exposing those responsible but I think actions should be taken. No woman should have to go to the gym wondering if her photo is going to end up on the site or if she's going to be attacked later on.

None of these assholes would appreciate it if their photos/names were published and calls to rape them were put out there. They'd cry like the weaklings that they are and then whine that their privacy had been violated, while they have no problem doing so to another person.

Note how there were threats of rape to the women who might "sue?" Yeah. They know someone can catch their asses and they're afraid and they should be.

I hope some good can come out of this but I doubt it, it is after all a problem for women.

I'd like to propose a Googlebomb linking Anthony Ciolli and Jarret Cohen's names to Jill's post.

I'm simultaneously disgusted to the point of illness, and yet completely unsurprised. Legallyblondeez is totally right -- top law schools are literally crawling with misogynist and racist little trolls who not only don't hide their bigotry, but are PROUD of it.

I'm thinking of two classmates in particular (though they're by no means outliers). Interestingly, they were both staunch Catholics (which doubly offends me as a committed Episcopalian -- not only were they racist and sexist assholes, but they bastardized my religion by co-opting it for their immoral views). One of them spoke up in class within the first month of law school, during a discussion about Title VII, and asked the professor if we could move onto a topic that had to do with something that actually mattered -- like his pocketbook. Another made a half-joking speech at a parliamentary debate (these are the things law students do for fun ;)) in which he opined that women didn't *really* need the right to vote.

These are both true stories and they just scratch the surface. I'd post names but I don't want them finding this/my blog if they google themselves. Having been through law school together, we've all got shit on each other that I'd rather not have publicized by someone angry that he was called out on his bigotry (I'm not talking serious dirty laundry -- more along the lines of silly drunkenness that I nonetheless wouldn't want popping up if a boss randomly decides to google me. I mean, God, dated/slept with classmates. What a slut am I!).

Alon -- Do you mean this Anthony Ciolli and Jarret Cohen?

Sadly, it seems like law is one of those fields that just seems to attract the wrong kind of people - in my experience, like medicine and law enforcement. This is a generalization, and there's nothing wrong with those careers, and there's good people in them - the problem is that there's just too damn many of the wrong kind of people. It's getting to the point where I pretty much only trust my fellow science dorks, and mechanics. Surprisingly good luck with them.

Incidentally, after reading the WaPo article, I'm pissed at UPenn's Dean. If Ciolli is doing ANYTHING re that site on bandwidth provided by the school, damn straight they can do something about it. By pretending his hands are tied, Clinton is complicit in their immorality.

I'm also pissed at the cavalier attitude displayed by a law student quoted by the article. As a former law student, I'm offended at the implication that law students and lawyers don't care about morality, only the law. The shitty lawyers may not care about morality. The truly great ones, however, care a great deal.

Interesting....
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/anthony_ciollis.html

At the risk of starting a discussion of whether the law should mirror morality (and whose morality?), I agree with TheLawFairy that excellent lawyers care deeply about professional integrity and hold themselves to a much higher standard of conduct than the law or ethics regulations require, both in their professions and in their personal lives. A law student who believes that lawyers need only be concerned about the limits of the law has failed to grasp that lawyers influence the *substance* of the law and should therefore be committed to conforming the law to standards of morality that at the very least include basic human dignity. Obviously, if that law student read any philosophy of jurisprudence, he failed to grasp that just because criminal law is designed to deter the "bad man" doesn't mean we should all sink to the lowest common denominator (props to Justice O.W. Holmes).

Take heart, non-legal feminists, that the good lawyers do not accept the status quo in the law as preordained, right, or inherently just. We recognize the law as a system that reflects as well as shapes society and that the law therefore is evolving. We seek to push the evolution of law in a way that not only serves our clients in the short term but enhances the justice and the integrity of the system.

On the other hand, the xoxohth posters who spew hate and condescension are gigantic tools who have accepted the system because it pays them a lot of money. They make me cry.

What's revolting is that the xoxo posters have anonymity and yet take away Jill's. Putting photos of yourself on a website does not mean people can reuse them and redistribute them as they please. Usually when picture-stealing happens on the internet, it's not a big deal. Cuteoverload.com probably wouldn't throw a snizz fit about my reposting a kitten picture, even if it is technically copyright infringement. However, you can't use a picture of someone else and then use it without his/her permission to destroy his/her reputation, humiliate him/her, and make him/her into a potential target for stalking.

The "friendly girl with big tits" comment on xoxo... ugh.

I find it interesting that the people on Althouse's site blamed the victim for what happened. "That is what you get when you post pictures on other sites." Hmmm. Sounds so familiar, doesn't it? "Well if you don't want to be raped, don't wear a short skirt."

I find this whole thing very disturbing.

there must be some way to conduct a "hollaback nyc"-style campaign against these guys. Alon Levy's googlebomb idea isn't a bad start. Uncover these fuckers and throw this shit in their faces. Make the feel uncomfortable in their own skin.

Google re-did their search engine so that googlebombs don't work. Other than that, it's a wonderful idea. I haven't wanted to punch somebody that much in a long time.

I cannot believe what I'm hearing by some of the posters who are pursuing law. These people are using offensive language, but they're words. We're supposed to have legally protected speech even if it's offensive to others.

"Take heart, non-legal feminists, that the good lawyers do not accept the status quo in the law as preordained, right, or inherently just. We recognize the law as a system that reflects as well as shapes society and that the law therefore is evolving. We seek to push the evolution of law in a way that not only serves our clients in the short term but enhances the justice and the integrity of the system."-legallyblondeez

The law is supposed to reflect the Bill of Rights. Your tone implies that you hope these SOBs will one day be punished for what they're saying. How is subverting the Bill of Rights "[enhancing] the justice and the integrity of the system"? Are you arguing that the Bill of Rights is not "just" or "right?" If I'm mistaken in your ambitions, please let me know.

Sigh. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff is not rare in law schools--or in the profession. It's disheartening and infuriating, and it's one of the reason why, even though I graduated at the top of my class from a first-tier school, I'm leaving the practice of law.

As for the "future legal superstars" over at AutoAdmit, it's a chicken and egg conundrum: are they in law school because they're assholes, or are they assholes because they're in law school?

You do not have a right to free speech on an internet message board.

The people who maintain that message board have the right to moderate it in any way they see fit.

And they have an *obligation* to moderate it when posters are anonymously threatening specific people.

Ivy, I'm not a law student or a lawyer, just a lowly undergrad. But I do know that "fighting words" and terroristic threats can be constitutionally banned. If "If you all sue, I hope someone raw dogs it right in your ass and kicks you out of their god damn house. Farthermore, I hope you all don't get offers @ OCI and have to walk barefoot to liquor store everyday b/c if you don't, your husband will beat the shit out of you. EAT AIDS SLUT BAG CUM DUMPSTERS" is neither, I'm going to a civilized country. Like Saudi Arabia.

I would think that there would be plenty of room to sue in civil court for slander or libel. The pictures and the content attatched to them are going to be damaging to the women's reputations if prospective employers see them and could hurt their future work if clients happen to see them. Obviously I'm not anywhere near the field of law though, so I'll defer to what The Law Fairy and legallyblondez have already contributed.

I think this is just disgusting. I've seen comments like that on celebrity blogs (which I then stopped reading) but I didn't know people went around seeking out photos of classmates and doing the same things. I mean, I put pictures of myself up on facebook and myspace and yes, in a couple I'm in a bathing suit and smiling. I don't want to take them down on the odd chance some asshole with an inferiority complex is going to manipulate them for their own sick reasons. Although I am considering taking down pictures that feature my 11 year old sister now. They don't have her name or any information about her, but still... makes me worried.

Genny--

Who do you sue? There are a bunch of layers of responsibility from the web host all the way down to the individual poster, and the more culpable the actual person is, the less traceable they are. I can't sue h8er4756 in a court of law, and it would be difficult to get the original host to be able to identify who the person is.

And this isn't even getting into the issue of sites that are hosted out of the United States.

Also, if the host doesn't approve every single comment, they're not treated as the publisher, and can't be sued, and individuals are rarely worth suing.

Ivy, I wasn't arguing against freedom of speech in the abstract, or even freedom to be an outspoken asshole in the concrete. I was, maybe mistakenly, waxing poetic in the hope that some of the prior commenters would not despair about the state of the legal profession based on the cretins who post at xoxohth. I apologize at what, in retrospect, was a very ambiguous and sort of silly post.

As for my views on free speech, I like it. I don't think that pure speech, no matter how offensive, should be regulated. The posters can yell about bitches and jews all they want. They have a right to say those words and I have a right to be offended and/or ignore them. The solution to speech I don't like is absolutely more speech.

However, I think some of the xoxoers crossed some existing anti-stalking laws when they outed particular women, and I think that advocating physical harm to particular people is an act that is already punishable, not purely speech. There is a difference between hateful speech, which is protected no matter how much I dislike it, and speech that enables and encourages people to assault individuals. Without assuming anything about your level of knowledge of the first amendment, or asserting that I am especially expert in this area (I'm not), I believe the first amendment as it is currently interpreted does not protect speech that fosters specific physical violence.

As for the direction I think that law should change: I meant to say that not all lawyers are bigoted misogynist assholes and that, in my view, part of being a lawyer who is also a feminist is activism to change laws that reinforce patriarchy and race-and-class privilege. The first amendment is not one of those laws.

It bothers me when people condoning hateful behavior that targets individual people cry "first amendment" in defense of their willing participation in that behavior, but that is not a strike against the first amendment. It's a strike against the haters.

Yes, free speech is constitutionally protected. This right is limited in certain ways. You don't have the right to lie, as laws against libel and slander reflect. You don't have the right to incite violence. The posts on this website appear to do both.

Law is a reflection of society. I'm not saying that stern-faced censors should appear with metaphysical black markers every time someone says something offensive. But to suggest that because we have the right to "free speech", we should accept violent threats, harassment, and lies as an unfortunate consequence of the existence of that right is to expand it beyond its intended boundaries.

Also, jeff--your comment is spectacularly unfair. Lawyers are people, just like everyone else. Some lawyers are jerks. Some scientists are jerks too. And mechanics? Apparently you've never been a woman taking your car in for service.

Thanks mernlar, that's a good explanation of how I understand the limits on first amendment protection of speech.

As an addendum to my "as it is currently interpreted," I think from the earliest days of the Bill of Rights this has been the limit. From classes I vaguely remember cases that helped make it concrete as follows:

Saying you dislike a politician is fine. You can even say you wish that politician were dead. But when you are an influential person and you get up in front of a crowd of angry people holding torches and say "You should go to that politician's house and set it on fire" you are no longer just speaking your opinion--you are inciting violence.

Even non-hateful speech that creates an immediate danger can be limited. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, as it is likely to cause the people to exit via stampeding all over one another.

I think the postings (both on xoxohth and on sites that were linked from posts there) that outed women's real life identities, locations, and habits and then advocated sexual violence against them is absolutely not pure opinion speech. The other garbage on that site is regrettable but that's why I don't visit there.

I know very little about internet privacy laws, other than that they are evolving, but using the internet's anonymity to commit a crime or violate someone's rights to privacy and bodily integrity is something I think should not be allowed as a matter of policy.

/gets off soapbox, feels a little sheepish but can't help herself

Google re-did their search engine so that googlebombs don't work.

I think Google only disabled the Bush/failure Googlebomb. The rest still work.

Ivy, your comment is a total non sequitur.

You seem to be under the impression that the LEGAL right to free speech means that people who disagree with fucked up speech should sit down and shut up about it. Especially if we're lawyers.

This is ridiculous and illogical.

Further, there's no "right" to post anything on the internet. If you own the internet, or a chunk of it, you're allowed to use your little corner of it to say whatever you want (unless it's prohibited for some other reason -- or maybe you think people should get to post detailed bomb-planting instructions on the internet). All of us here are super lucky in that we're given access to sites that allow us to trumpet our ideas -- but these sites are under no obligation to give us the MEANS to speak. They do it voluntarily, but they could stop tomorrow with zero legal consequences. Jessica could hold every single comment here for approval, and delete the ones from people with names that start with Q, and be a hundred percent within her rights. For the most part, even the government is under no such obligations. The First Amendment restricts the government from INFRINGING on the freedom of speech. In other words, President Bush doesn't get to waltz onto the boards of xoxohth and metaphysically tape shut the mouths of the idiots who spew their tripe there. But the people who actually OWN the bandwidth? They get to decide how it's used. If they want to moderate comments, they get to do that. Kind of like if you're at my home and you start discussing constitutional concepts you clearly don't grasp, I'm free to tell you to shut up or leave, and to enforce my instructions.

Further, Ivy, there are lots of different legal philosophies about how the Constitution operates. For one thing, freedom of speech is not absolute, as others here have pointed out. In addition, it has to be read in harmony with numerous other constitutional provisions. Take, for instance, the 14th Amendment. Some legal philosophers such as Catharine MacKinnon have suggested that the 14th Amendment is a guarantee of SUBSTANTIVE, and not merely formal, equality. To the extent that First and Fourteenth Amendment rights conflict, then -- e.g., hardcore porn -- the Fourteenth Amendment, being the later amendment, trumps. Yeah, you can disagree with this interpretation -- but there are some really smart people who back it. I wouldn't be so flippant about legallyblondeez' intelligent and noble sentiments. Smarter people than any of us here disagree on the very basic issues you purport to explicate.

Last addendum, I swear:

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to speak anonymously. Even when the speech itself is protected.

Which is why it is a doubly false claim for the xoxohth admins to claim freedom of speech protects (and even prevents) them from revealing the irl identities of the posters so that women or appropriate authorities can pursue appropriate legal remedies against them for their already unprotected speech-acts.

And also why advocating that internet privacy laws should not protect individuals who approach the line between speech and violence is not treading even remotely close to abridging the right to free speech.

Alon:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html

Oh, and also -- of course, there I go again, missing the forest for trees and getting bogged down in law school-speak :0)

As legallyblondeez, mernlar and others note, stalking, libel, and harassment aren't First Amendment rights. And there are privacy rights -- some of them stemming from other parts of the Constitution, in fact -- that may apply here. It is hardly an abrogation of the First Amendment to deny people the "right" to harass, humiliate, and threaten others.

Word to MacKinnon, Law Fairy. I didn't want to start a con-law fight since the most mainstream and speech-inclusive interpretation is already on the side of outing and punishing the offenders, but there's certainly room for debate on what freedom of speech actually means and how it should be interpreted against our other God-and-founding-father-given rights.

bittergradstudent it appears that Jill has at least two names already and could probably subpoena to get all the information the host site has on the other posters. (Again, not that I know anything about law that can't be learned from the TV so the real-life law geniuses are welcome to correct me) Maybe it seems futile but if it were me I'd want to expose those assholes in the most public forum available to me.

I wanted to mention fighting words but I didn't know if I understood the concept correctly, so thanks to those who fleshed it out a little. It seems like this forum where women's real names, addresses, and contact information were posted without their consent would be something a good legal student would avoid because of it's powder-keg quality. But I guess the nature of the internet and their own inherent sexism kept them from seeing that clearly.

Genny, you are right that in theory Jill or one of the other women targeted by this behavior could try to serve a subpoena to discover the identities of the posters who targeted them. As noted above, I'm not familiar enough with internet privacy laws to know whether the subpoena would be enforceable. I hope it would be.

But bittergradstudent is right that it will likely do no good to sue the ISP, web host, site admins, or anyone other than posters who actually revealed private information and advocated invasion of the women's privacy and physical safety. There are many protections for individuals and entities that provide a forum for speech but do not regulate the content of that forum. And unless the posters are established attorneys and not, as I suspect, students or young lawyers up to their gills in student debt, they do not have deep pockets to punish. Even if their daddies (or mommies) are paying for school they probably don't have significant assets.

Not to say that all Jill should want is money out of this, but she probably couldn't even get enough to cover the cost of suing the jerks in the first place. One of the sad realities of a civil justice system based on monetary compensation is that there's not much downside if you're already broke or crafty enough to make your assets untouchable.

If somebody can afford to take on the case pro bono, though, by all means pursue the dudes. In the meantime, let's use our freedom of speech rights to convict them in the court of public opinion.

"I think the postings (both on xoxohth and on sites that were linked from posts there) that outed women's real life identities, locations, and habits and then advocated sexual violence against them is absolutely not pure opinion speech."-legallyblondeez

These comments, from legally and bearcat, reminded me of a conversation I had with my friend who's attending Stanford Law. What you say makes perfect legal sense. These people not only advocated violence against these people, but they provided links to personal information and pictures. Whether or not it's libel, I'd say no because you have to prove it was done with the malicious intent to damage the person's reputation. Of course I haven't been to that site so I don't know exactly what they've said. Thanks for the clarification, Legallyblondeez.

Law Fairy, I just finished reading the first couple of lines of your post addressed to me, and I have to say that you've obviously missed my point. I was seeking clarification from legallyblondeez, but I guess you weren't reading carefully enough. She, however, was and gave a thoughtful and courteous response, unlike yourself. So please, in the future, let's keep this forum civil and abstain from using "foul language."

Since we're discussing free speech, there is an avert-your-eyes counterargument. This isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. In my opinion, the way to deal with it is to ignore it. She's just gratifying the dickheads that are doing this to her. It's like feeding the trolls.

And any career counselor will tell you not to post to myspace or blogs or wherever, or if you do, do so anonymously. Recruiters check that stuff now. This isn't a woman's issue; it's an issue of professionalism. Yes, that means, don't post your travel pictures publicly, because once they're out there, you lose control. And reputation, as Jill observes, is important.

Oh and memo to Jill: statistically speaking, those adolescent dickwads are four times as likely to make partner than you. See link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html?ex=1173502800&en=f76b30af68a58313&ei=5070
Please persevere because law firms need determined women like you. The bullshit you're encountering now doesn't go away; it just becomes more civil. Here's a must-read written by an acquaintance of mine: http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Gauntlet-Removing-Barriers-Success/dp/0314960376/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4635885-5889424?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173362453&sr=1-1

Legallyblondeez, IVY and TLF: the issue is state action. As TLF indicated, a private website can censor as much as it wants. A governmental entity, however, cannot criminalize speech, internet or otherwise, except under the conditions described by LegallyBlondeeze. That said, however, you're on crack if you think that the comments at issue could be regulated. There's a website solely dedicated to celebrity sitings. Not past sitings, but "so and so is at such and such place right now, come see". It's creepy (to celebrities) but 100% legal under current law.

And TLF: IMO MacKinnon backed into her reasoning - she wanted to find a way to justify censorship. I don't think in this big brothery day and age, anyone would benefit from broad government censorship.

One last thought: if it were legal to criminalize a website for encouraging illegal behavior, NAMBLA would be shut down. NAMBLA is the man boy love association. They take the position that children are erotic, and there's nothing wrong with what we refer to as pedophilia. Two men who met on the site went on to abduct, rape and kill a little boy named Matthew Curley.

I believe that Matthew Curley's parents have led a crusade to shut NAMBLA down, to no avail. If you can't shut NAMBLA down, I hardly think that xoxo or whatever it's called could be regulated.

Could somebody please explain Ann Althouse? Is she actually a lawyer who doesn't understand why sexual harrassment and stalking are wrong?

Come on people - this should be the top story on digg right now, but it hasn't even been entered yet. Let's go!

"That said, however, you're on crack if you think that the comments at issue could be regulated."-Jane

Actually, Jane, I agree with you. I personally don't agree with censorship or restriction of speech in any sense, including sedition. I was merely sympathizing with the notion that a case could be made, though it'd be unlikely to get anywhere. After reviewing my last post, I see that my comments were misleading about my views. The big issue would be proving intent, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence towards that goal.

Jane, granted that you should not put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want connected to your name (see above post re: no right to anonymity), the people who ran the contest that included Jill's photos violated copyright in addition to possibly the anti-stalking laws. In any event, Jill isn't actually threatening legal action. I believe she quotes one of the commenters on the contest site as making a particularly heinous threat *if* one of the contest "entrants" should sue the site owner. Then people in the comments here asked whether there was any legal recourse, which generated wild speculation on the part of the young lawyers and students above. Since my background is in corporate litigation and not internet regulation or anti-stalking laws, I may have some outdated or wrong assumptions about the state of the law. But I firmly believe that some of the material posted is at the least legally actionable defamation if not criminal.

While I agree that in terms of self-protection it is safer to remain as anonymous on the internet as possible, and not post pictures of yourself, that doesn't mean it's okay in any sense for those photos to be co-opted for the purpose of humiliating and sexualizing her. Jill appears to be very aware that what she posts is open to the public and that she is opening herself up to challenge and criticism. She is not objecting to that--she is objecting to the theft of her intellectual property and the exploitation of her online presence to attack her viciously and in a way that dehumanizes her and delegitimizes her academic, political, and professional worth. She is further objecting to the "blame the victim" reaction to the idea that women's online personae might include pictures (even "sexy" pictures!). I doubt you meant to fall into that vein since you appear to be giving professional advice, but for someone like Jill who appears to have considered those risks and made a conscious decision to live a public online life, it's moot.

That said, however, you're on crack if you think that the comments at issue could be regulated. There's a website solely dedicated to celebrity sitings. Not past sitings, but "so and so is at such and such place right now, come see". It's creepy (to celebrities) but 100% legal under current law.

Jane, the law is different when applied to celebrities ("public figures"). In very simplistic terms, regular folks like us and arguably Jill (and certainly the unnamed law student) have a right to privacy. Celebrities, on the other hand, have a right to publicity. It's a night and day difference, and the law does recognize such a difference.

Ivy, I didn't realize "illogical" was foul language. I'll try not to hurt your fragile feelings again, but as they say, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

"You seem to be under the impression that the LEGAL right to free speech means that people who disagree with fucked up speech should sit down and shut up about it."-Law Fairy

I was referring to the word "fuck", but, again, it seems you are not reading what I wrote.

"Further, there's no 'right' to post anything on the internet. If you own the internet, or a chunk of it, you're allowed to use your little corner of it to say whatever you want..."-Law Fairy

Hmmm. What is posting, Law Fairy? It's writing down one's thoughts. People do have the right to write down their thoughts. Yes, people can own webspace. An example of such ownership is a forum. Forums are just that: places where the free exchange of ideas can occur. If you have a problem with freedom, then I suggest you take up residence in another country.

As for the various theories of Constitutional interpretation, I have heard people much smarter than you debate such topics. Your argument that the 14th Amendment should trump the 1st Amendment is ridiculous and illogical. The Bill of Rights is the FOUNDATION of all other amendments.

Lastly, after reading your entire post, and rereading mine, it seems that you had no idea what I was talking about or where I was coming from.

P.S.-As for your comment about "sharing bomb building instructions", yes, you should be able to post such information. What's done with that information should be punished if used illegally. I can only guess that you're either unable or unwilling to imagine that such information can be used for non-violent purposes.

I have an idea. This message board is completely unmoderated and never takes anything down, right? That means it's a sitting duck for a Denial of Service attack. We can just flood the boards with gibberish and make it completely unusable. I'm not sure if this is actually a good idea or not, but it seems like it should be possible to do.

Ivy, you called my comment "uncivil" so I reasonably assumed you meant I had said something directed at YOU that made it so. Do you honestly take issue with the simple use of the word "fuck"? Because if so... you're probably on the wrong website.

After posting the bomb-instruction comment I realized that a better example would be a website containing plans to assassinate the president. You bet the government could (and probably would) put a stop to it.

You either misunderstand what I am saying, or you misunderstand constitutional law (or both). No, you DON'T have a right to post on the internet. IF you have tools to record your thoughts, you have the right to record them. But no one has a RIGHT to bandwidth. This is why it's legal for a phone company to charge you for DSL service. This is a very basic distinction. Just like I have the RIGHT to travel (w/in the US), but the government is under no obligation to give me the MEANS to travel.

Listening to people smarter than me doesn't make YOU an expert. As I said, there are valid disagreements about things like the interplay of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (which I used as a mere EXAMPLE). I don't think either you or I can just discount outright what constitutional scholars who've spent their adult LIVES studying this stuff have to say about it.

You appear to take the position that the Bill of Rights cannot be trumped. Please correct me if I misunderstand your position here. If this is your position, it is clearly incorrect. The Bill of Rights was adopted in response to criticism of the Constitution. A lot of early Americans feared that the federal government would become too powerful without specific protections written into the Constitution to guard people's rights against government tyranny. These amendments were not all adopted at once, but rather over the course of a couple years. It goes without saying that they were not part of the Constitution as originally ratified.

These amendments are treated no differently from any other constitutional amendment. All constitutional amendments must adhere to a strict process of ratification. Every constitutional amendment is therefore coequal with every other. If and when constitutional amendments ever conflict, the later amendment controls. This is why we're allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages.

Interestingly, the First Amendment would have no application to individual states absent the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Up until a few short decades ago, if the state of Nebraska had wanted to infringe on its citizens' freedom of speech (and there was no STATE constitutional provision preventing it), it could do so. The First Amendment to the US Constitution would have had no effect. This has little practical relevance since most state constitutions are highly similar to the US Constitution, but the application of the US Constitution to the operation of states is good for us citizens who care about things like freedom -- the more protection, the better, as far as I'm concerned. The Fourteenth Amendment thus modified the First Amendment (as well as the Second, Third, Fourth, etc.). If later amendments couldn't change/modify/supersede earlier amendments, we'd have an awfully confusing and stagnant form of government, and the amendment process would be completely meaningless.

legallyblondeez, Jill did indicate that among her concerns was the perception of "future professional colleagues". But you're right - my professional advice wasn't appropriate for Jill.

TLF, true. I was focusing on anti-stalking, which applies equally to celeb and nonceleb, but with respect to privacy and defamation, it's completely different. Enlighten me: what's the basis for defamation? obviously, just being sexist doesn't cut it.

and if anyone is interested, here's a link some one emailed me many moons ago: http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/09/erisa_hotties_the_winners.php ERISA is my practice area. I have no idea what above the law is. I mean, I don't know if they're well trafficed (sp?) or respected. And I have no idea if these pics were used with or without permission.

Incorporation doctrine = #1 comedy killer.

jane, it varies from state to state, but generally defamation requires that you publicize untrue statements about other people. "Publicize" pretty much just means you mention it to at least one other person. Thus, truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If you go around orally airing the false statements, it's slander. If you write them down somewhere (internet, newspaper, magazine), it's libel.

However, even defamation applies slightly differently to public figures versus private individuals. Again, truth is an absolute defense for either, but there's a different scienter standard. If I recall correctly, for private individuals you have to have acted in reckless disregard of the truth (example: Bob tells me Jim has herpes. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I don't care because it's great gossip, so I go ahead and publish on my blog: "Jim has herpes." This is probably defamation). For public figures, however, you have to act maliciously -- this is why it's notoriously difficult for famous people to win defamation lawsuits (example: I know that GWB was sleeping soundly and quietly at 8:00 p.m. yesterday. However, because I hate GWB and want to embarrass him and tarnish his reputation, I post on my blog: "GWB was driving like a drunken maniac on Sunset Blvd last night!!!" This is probably defamation).**

What these asshats have done to Jill and the unnamed Yale law student probably qualifies under either standard. The unnamed Yale law student is definitely a private individual. Jill may or may not be, depending on the test applied. Either way, though, the statements made about Jill most definitely appear malice-driven and therefore, assuming they are untrue (as I'm certain they are), she may have a libel lawsuit against the commenters and possibly against Ciolli and Cohen as well, since they run and thereby effectively "publish" the forum in which the defamation occurred. As Prof. Leiter notes (thanks to iheartben for the link), a subpoena or two could easily identify the individual prepetrators.

**disclaimer: I use these merely as examples. I make no representations as to whether or not anyone named "Jim" has or doesn't have herpes, and I make no representations as to whether or not GWB was or has ever been driving like a drunken maniac on Sunset Blvd., last night or at any other time.

Jane, Aboe the Law is a very well-known but little respected blog written by an individual named David Lat, who used to post at Underneath Their Robes using a different (female)pseudonym, I believe. The controversy over the ERISA hotties contest was one of the ways this blog gained notoriety. I seriously doubt the ERISA pictures were used with permission.

The legal blogosphere appears to have decided either that the "hottie" contests are harmless fun or that they are best ignored lest they gain any legitimacy through controversy. In my limited experience with ATL and xoxohth, I believe that Lat moderates his comments section and that the material on xoxo and the other sites to which it directed users in the case of Jill and her peers was much more violent and explicit. I still think ATL is a sexist waste of space--it's a matter of degree and all sexualization of a professional's life is harmful in my opinion, even when ATL includes male contestants--but I think the degree at xoxohth crossed some important lines between despicable "jokes" and punishable offenses.

Two things:

1) Ivy: TLF is right. Later amendments trump earlier amendments, just as later laws trump earlier laws. The 1st amendments and most of the rest of the bill of rights was incorporated against the states by the 14th amendment, just as TLF explains. Incorporation was highly controversial, and did not begin until the 20th Century.

2) TLF: Just to clarify constitutional protection for allegedly libelous/slanderous speech. In order for a public official or figure to recover, or for a private figure to obtain punitive damages--what was said about them must have been uttered with "actual" or "NY Times" malice. Actual malice is publishing something that you know is false, or with "reckless disregard" to its truth or falsity. For private figures, according to Gertz v. Welch, the state may set any liability standard as long as it is not no-fault. So a state could theoretically punish someone for being negligent as to the truth or falsity of defamatory statements made about a private figure. I do not know if any state has gone this far.

lb, I personally find ATL way more palatable than UTR, and a gazillion times more palatable than AA (hehe). Something always seemed "off" to me about A3G. Now that Lat's "out" (as a male) I find that he's gotten slightly less gushy gossip-mag-queen. Probably because it's easier to exaggerate that sort of thing as a "woman." (I wrote a post a while back lambasting Lat for pretending to be a girl, because it freaking pissed me off).

I do think one major difference might be the audience Lat attracts, versus the audience xoxohth attracts. There are some people who say some messed-up things on Lat's blog, but Lat's also vaguely left (and possibly gay, or at least pretty gay-friendly; though he has done the unforgivable in posing for a picture, recently, with She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named) and so I think far-right crazies shy away from his blog naturally. Ciolli apparently considers Bush too far left for him (lovely) and it's pretty obvious that autoadmit is not attracting a ton of bleeding-heart lefties.

A further distinction: Ciolli is a toplaw 2L, Cohen is (I believe) a college-dropout insurance agent. Lat is a former federal appellate clerk, a toplaw grad, and a former federal prosecutor. It doesn't seem such a leap that a slightly more mature audience might flock to Lat's blog.

I'll also note that Lat's "hottie" contests, while ridiculous, are way less sexist than Ciolli and Cohen's. I wouldn't call them "good" or mature or anything ridiculous like that -- but they tend to be somewhat equal (at least, as much so as you can be living with the social backdrop we do) and Lat at least makes some pretense of trying to weed out sexism. Imho, that sort of thing makes a difference, even if he does let people get away with using the "n" word in the comments (which, disgustingly, they have -- though in fairness, it was at least relevant to the topic).

And unless the posters are established attorneys and not, as I suspect, students or young lawyers up to their gills in student debt, they do not have deep pockets to punish. Even if their daddies (or mommies) are paying for school they probably don't have significant assets.

Who cares? The point is to get a decision that will follow them throughout their legal careers.

Though one of the little shits who owns the site is an insurance broker in Allentown, PA. Apparently a law school wannabe.

Ismone, thanks! I knew it was something like that :)

Ismone, thanks for setting us straight.

Law Fairy: You did address those comments towards me. They're written in your earlier post. As for the "right" to equipment argument, when did I ever say anything remotely resembling such a claim?

"Who cares? The point is to get a decision that will follow them throughout their legal careers."--zuzu

Agreed. I was thinking about the practicalities of the thing, since as a young attorney up to her gills in student loans, I couldn't front the money to pursue the case pro bono, much less do so knowing there was little likelihood of any monetary recovery at the end.

But as I said before, I'd love to do it for the principle of the thing. And certainly outing the posters (not just the Penn student and insurance dude who run xoxohth, who are the currently known individuals) would tarnish their legal careers. I'd love to do that in a court of law or just on the internet, as they did to Jill et al. Though, of course, I won't be threatening to rape anyone. Just pointing out that "john smith" is a violent, misogynist ass.

It seems to me that most Bar associations would have the ability to exclude people on the basis of behavior unbecoming a lawyer,or words to that effect.
Where these boyo's identities are known,it seems an appropriate remedy to seek,and where they are not know,it seems likely that a good private investigator could come up with them.
After all,they're law students.They should have known better!

Actually, most states require that members of the bar in that state report unethical conduct of other bar members (or prospective bar members). What counts as "unethical" may be up for debate, though (I remember loooong discussions in Prof. Responsibility about whether you'd have to report a fellow lawyer for smoking pot, for instance. You probably don't. For which a number of my lawyer friends should be grateful ;)).

If we discover that any of them is a current member of or applicant to the CA bar, I'd feel obligated to mention it to the bar association. I suspect these acts alone would not cause a current member to be disbarred (though I know nothing about those standards and I'd certainly make sure it went in his file for future reference) but it certainly might influence the outcome of the moral character examination that we all go through.

Re: Bill of Rights v. 14th Amendment. If you read the 14th to incorporate the Bill of Rights, then it would be hard for one to "trump" the other. The best reading of XIV as incorporation would actually be highly deferential to the Bill of Rights, as written and understood in 1870. That's a type of mental gymnastics that is the basis of really bad precedent.

On to copyright law: Jill has a copyright claim to those pictures. She need not have registered them to get that claim. A person who publishes them or uses them without her permission is liable for copyright infringement. A website that hosts such pictures is ALSO liable. Remember Napster? Ever loaded a picture onto Facebook?

Not to sound snarky, because this situation must be awful for the NYU students (although there was a hottest guy contest, no?), but you guys want to be LAWYERS. The law is on your side. If you can't wreck enough havoc on these people to shut them down and teach them a lesson, find a new profession.

Oenophile--I guess I worded that poorly--there are really two separate ideas, the first is that the amendment last in time trumps, so if there is a conflict between the 1st and 14th amendments (which MacKinnon believes there is) the 14th trumps. The second is that the 14th amendment modifies the 1st amendment by applying it to the states, which is not the same as "trumping."

*Non-legal comment from non-lawyer type*

Sorry to hear all this, Jill (if you're reading this). Misogyny never ends anywhere, does it? Sometimes I wonder why so many men don't speak out against sexism in the face of so much shameful misogyny. Like don't non-feminist guys out there ever get sick and ashamed of themselves and their partners in crime? Something I noticed is med students, law students and business students can be more aggressive than college students or other grad students. There can be a macho, aggressive, cut-throat attitude in professional schools. Ouchage. I don't know how female law students, med students and business students shut out all the aggression and machismo from fellow students and professors. What struck me the other day was a scary comments on one of the two threads on that forum Jill highlighted which included her which typified the condescending attitude of some pre-professional men. He said his wife was too ambitious and that maybe after her first child she will more under control. dogbert said: A little too professionally ambitious is probably my biggest complaint, but she'll likely grow out of that pretty soon (especially after having first child).

Funny, I didn't know that "professionally ambitious" was an insult. Apparently I don't pay enough attention to propaganda.

donna, I saw the comment you're talking about. That statement combines so many disgusting traits in one misogynist bundle: subjugation of the wife's desires, treating the woman like a child, expecting the woman to be a mother (that's all we're meant for, after all).

I've said it before a lot, but yeah. Law school is fucking FULL of these shitheads. Frankly, law school is what turned me from (I think someone else here recently used this terminology) a small "f" feminist into a Big Fat Capital "F" Feminist. So I guess it's done some good in that sense ;)

legallyblondeez, I'm all for figuring out which bar he applies to, and writing them with a link to the board. They might already know about it, but it can't hurt to make sure they're alerted to it.

Gotcha, Ismone. :)

There's a reason why I don't date engineers (even being one myself) - it's the attitude of intelligent, Western, upper-middle class white men who just don't see how LUCKY they are. Be born another gender, race, to different parents, in a third world country, or with a brain that does not function so well, and your world view may change. There are a LOT of men who go through high school and college and law school at the top, and they have yet to be bested by someone better, or to realise that they are where they are for happenstance, not for grace.

Fortunately, my law school seems to have very few of the people described by Jill and LawFairy, but I sought it out for that reason. I loved my undergrad and learned my lesson the easy way - no way was I going to spend $50,000/year on an education and have jerks around me. Linda Hirschman's "A Woman's Guide to Law School" made that point very well: before one sends in a tuition check (or takes out the loans), she should ensure that she is going to a woman-friendly school.

(I am NOT aiming this at Jill; NYU is supposed to be very warm & fuzzy, and this was perpetrated by students at other schools; it's for any woman here contemplating law school. Or heck, any guy who believes that woman-friendly is people-friendly.)