Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

167 Responses

  1. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 1:41 am |

    I’m so sorry this happened to you. You have been and continue to be fiercley brave by just being you and sharing that with us. Thank you.

  2. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 4, 2006 at 1:53 am |

    Jill, you’re my hero. Keep in mind what Becky told me when I started getting hate mail from VDare racist types: it means you’re doing good work.

  3. Jeanne
    Jeanne January 4, 2006 at 2:02 am |

    It’s so pathetic that these people are wasting valuable chunks of their life like this. This is what their life is about-judgment and hate? They are so confident, as long as they can pass judgment in the security of anonymity. This is a cry for help. They clearly need therapy. Life is so short, boys. It’s way past time to grow up. If you’re going to be hateful, at least be able to own up to your behavior.

    I hope you feel better soon, Jill. Those wisdom teeth extractions are painful. If memory serves, (it’s been a long time since I had mine removed), the first day is horrible, the next day is better and the pain drops off significantly after that.

  4. Robert
    Robert January 4, 2006 at 2:19 am |

    Actually, this is classic sexual harassment – an attempt to create a hostile environment in which you cannot function. You have a very strong case, from my non-lawyer perspective. Sue the fuckers into oblivion.

  5. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 2:21 am |

    I agree with Robert *omg I agreed with Robert, breath*

  6. Lux Fiat
    Lux Fiat January 4, 2006 at 2:25 am |

    It is weird as hell to feel like you’re in the panopticon. Which, of course, is the whole point of the panopticon. You’re being watched! Be careful!

    The important part, to my mind, is that the observers don’t have two brain cells to rub together. They watch. They note. And this is the best they can do with it.

    I dunno. I’m familiar with the desire to isolate oneself from all that watching and shit, and I don’t even have a blog anymore. It ain’t easy being a public feminist, even these days, which is probably why this weblog is as valuable as it is. You guys, along with your feminist-blogging cohort, do in fact provide an extremely valuable service to the rest of us who would otherwise ourselves feel isolated. And for it, you get unfair amounts of shit.

    I’d like to say we’re all in this together, but I’m not risking a damn thing. You guys are out front (again, along with the rest of the public feminists). Thanks. That’s all, I guess. Thanks.

  7. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 2:56 am |

    Ditto everything Lux said, and I also agree with Robert.

    And I think I owe you an apology–given that your initial post produced as much quality discussion as it did, I retract my recommendation that you pull it. I didn’t realize at the time how LONG this had been going on or how vile it had been getting.

    “Hate-fuck?” Lord, just let me get my hands on that wanker. I’ll show him hate.

  8. Auguste
    Auguste January 4, 2006 at 3:11 am |

    Those wisdom teeth extractions are painful.

    I assume you’re talking about Jill’s, but if by chance you’re referring to some sort of stealth retribution mission against Dooderino and those other cobags, let me know and I’ll bring along my pliers, my weed-whacker, and my completely empty bottle of novocaine.

  9. The Countess
    The Countess January 4, 2006 at 3:17 am |

    Jill, if it gets worse, you might want to report it to the Dean of Students anyway, just so you have a written record of what’s going on at the college. It’s unsettling that people who know you or are aware of you are watching you on campus, and later saying ugly things about you on that board.

  10. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 3:22 am |

    A note: several tried to comment on the previous post but parroted their earlier comments and did not choose to use valid email accounts. I decided to moderate those commenters and those are the people that I address in the excerpt.

    By the way, “hate fuck” is an oh-so-amusing-and-clever way of saying “rape.” I would report that to whomever. Start a paper trail.

  11. tigtog
    tigtog January 4, 2006 at 3:43 am |

    One of Amanda’s posts today said: “The strange thing about the fear that drives that is it’s absolutely insane to think that if women aren’t dependent on men, that men are poorer for it. What is there to fear? ”

    The ‘that’ she speaks of is the culture war against women involving denying access to sex toys, birth control and decent financial support for single mothers – all fueled IMO by a fear of female independence from the shackles of fertility and the societal control fertility can force women to accept. The fear of women wanting some control over the sperm that men produce, at least once it enters their body.

    And you make it worse for the irrational reactionaries on that board by obviously having sincere friendships with men and also more intimate relationships – so it is demonstrably possible for you to fuck men and enjoy it just so long as the men in question don’t say stupid stuff like those jerks. And if you can be attractive but non-compromisingly feminist and still easily find men to enjoy fucking, then what if other women follow your example? There will be fewer women around that will take their shit, that’s what. And that’s what they most fear – where will they find their hypothetical future compliant trophy wife if you’ve shown the potential trophy wives that they can enjoy relationships better than what these jerks are offering without compromising their autonomy?

    We love and respect you because you are a kick-arse role model, and that’s why they hate and fear you.

  12. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 3:45 am |

    Jesus Christ, they’re already onto this post. Do they just wait for you to write stuff? I can’t believe these guys.

    Report them. Seriously.

  13. A Supporter
    A Supporter January 4, 2006 at 3:57 am |

    Just wanted to say that I support you and your attitude and response to this mess. Please don’t take any of their negativity too personally – it is only spawned by insecurity and cowardice. As an older female law student, I’m proud of how you’re handling yourself.

  14. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 4:10 am |

    Geez, you creeps are stalker material. By the way cowardly creeps, Jill never said that what was happening to her was akin to rape or sexual harrassment, we did! You all aren’t above lies or attacking a woman you’ve never met, so anything you have to say is pure shit.

  15. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 4:17 am |

    feminists are the most and bitter opinionated people on planet earth. Their whole existence revolves around militant hate towards men or anyone who disagrees w/ their opinions. How can you complain? you are just getting a dose of their own medicine. While iI understand your concern, I wish you realized that this is a direct result of putting yourself out in a public forum. This is much like Jessica Simpson comlaining about photos of her online, when she voluntarily decited to live in the public eye (the comparison isn’t exact, obviously you are not Jessica Simpson famous). For you to feel uncomfortable is understandable, felling scared and staying home is crazy though. No one from xoxohth.com cares enough about you to even talk to you, much less accost you. Dont feel so self-important. They just do it for kicks (occasionally these things are funny, in this case your reaction is what makes it funny), which is easy to see if you actually attend the site regularly. You would also see that the forum gives interested parties (Law students, proepective LS) a casual environment to discuss issues relevant to school admissions, classes, and social life. Most threads, even the ones which start out questionable (racist, sexist, rude…) develope into serious intellectual conversations naturally. This is a good reflection of the spirit of xoxo posters. They like to have fun, they are extremely intelligent, and they dont take themselves too seriously. A lesson which you might still need to learn.

  16. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 4, 2006 at 4:20 am |

    it’s ok anashi… it was alot to read. let me help:

    “The first thing I thought of when reading that thread was the way women in sexaul harassment cases are treated.”

    this was the blog post that upset me. I didn’t read any of the other comments, but reading yours and that of the non-trad above you, it might be worth it.

    Jill, I really don’t think anyone hates you over on xo. But I think our board speaks and acts in a way far different from yours. It isn’t worth it to blow out of proportion the comments from one or two anonymous people. It is waaaaaaaay over the top to go into hiding from school.

  17. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 4:32 am |

    Yeah, doc lewis, I’m sure you would just let it slide if you had a sister who was being spoken of in the manner Jill has been. She’s fucking human being, can’t you see how what you and other people on your board have said could hurt her. By ‘far different’ you mean fucking sadistic right. Cause it’s all fun and games and it’s alright that someone is getting hurt as long as you sick fucks get your jollys from it. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, but I don’t think you have the empathy too.

  18. mr.plow
    mr.plow January 4, 2006 at 4:32 am |

    ” “it amazes me that people take anything that comes from this board seriously. plus, since when is it harassment to talk shit about someone, when its not directly to them?” Ok, I think we can all assume that you aren’t in law school.”

    what does that mean? are you saying it could be harassment to post insults about you and your public actions on a public forum where its not even know if you would see them?

    does you’re “aren’t in law school” sarcastic snide non-answer mean that it could be harassment?

  19. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 4, 2006 at 4:38 am |

    You aren’t backing up what you’re saying Jill. For one thing, I think we can safely assume you don’t know much about sarcasm. A great deal of the posts regarding you are dripping with it due to how self absorbed and unnecessarily intense your rants come off. Sorry if you don’t approve, but going on to our board, making one post, and not responding does not count as “coming over to our place”. And lord knows you don’t have to! Your best bet is to just let this shit die. The longer you continue to stir it up with the assholes on our board, the longer it will continue. Cute conclusory one word retorts don’t do you justice and undercut your points anyway. I hope you write better in school than you do on your blog.

  20. SpongeBob
    SpongeBob January 4, 2006 at 4:40 am |

    I’m surprised you’ve taken so much time to respond to the comments on the other website. While I think you’ve handled yourself rather well, it seems to me that you should have seen something along these lines coming (particularly if you believe we exist in a patriarchal society that seeks to oppress strong women). Some of the positions you have taken are extremely unpopular and will typically result in a variety of responses from people who are not of like mind. It would seem that the critical responses you have received would only bolster your foundational views and make you more certain of them; yet, rather than stick to your guns, you’ve decided to slog into the mess with them. It’s all rather pathetic.

    P.S. I

  21. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 4:43 am |

    anashi, your attitude is just as extreme as the worst of those posters. “sick fucks” “ill rip you dick off (not an exact quote)”.

    Those of you who consider Jill your hero, I hope that it isnt b/c of this….that would be taking this whole issue too far.

    Jill, to be honest with you, your best bet would just be to ignore all this attention. It is your reactions that fuel this fire.

    BTW, if you ladies disagree with my opinion on feminism, just look at your mascot up top. A little girl w/ a shotgun….ummm militant much?

  22. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 4, 2006 at 4:45 am |

    Anashi, you said we were being liars. I showed you that we weren’t. What with it being 2006 and all, everyone I know has been bashed on the internet at this point. I haven’t taken my discussion of this in a sexual/physical way, shape, or form. Don’t lump me in in you wanna switch your argument from one giant statement you can’t prove to another.

  23. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 4:52 am |

    I love how “the most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world” is so chock-full of people clearly unfamiliar with actual law.

    You’re precious, all right. Particularly you, Lewis. Whatever would you do without this blog to entertain you?

  24. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 4:54 am |

    You support them Doc and excuse them. That’s just as bad. I never said anything about ripping anyones dick off. That is not even a partially correct quote. But that’s immediately what your mind goes to, which is interesting to say the least. Got some issues to work through, don’t you?

  25. mr.plow
    mr.plow January 4, 2006 at 4:56 am |

    “Harassment is not defined as direct shit-talking”

    well, my comment was made in the context of the board and comments/responses by people on your blog. i wasn’t trying to define harassment.

    based on a lot of youe comments here, while i’m sure they stem from a level of frustration, they are very judgemental and unfair. if you are a feminist, then i would imagine that you don’t appreciate being judged on your looks, or on any other superfical feature especially when it’s taken out of context or an incomplete picture. yet based on a few random posts here and on the board you insult and make judgements about individual’s intelligence and try to use that as some sort of leverage or advantage to make yourself seem smarter when in fact you just come off as smug and glib, plus you are usually dodging the issue examples include

    “I hope you read your case books more thoroughly than you read blogs. ”

    “Reading comprehension, friends.”

  26. SpongeBob
    SpongeBob January 4, 2006 at 4:59 am |

    ilyka, the board is a conglomeration of law students, pre-law students, non-law students, so you can’t really expect a sturdy legal argument by everyone involved. However, after a quick survey on Westlaw I’m pretty confident in saying it is pretty apparent that no one has a good grasp on harrassment law (largely because of the widely divergent standards from state to state).I’d also caution you from taking their tongue-in-cheek antics seriously.

  27. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 5:00 am |

    Yeah, I’m off to bed, as well. I’ve got my own dental surgery ahead of me tommorrow, three cavities. So if anyone posts anything completely lame and sexist in my absence, a big fuck you to you…and goodnight.

  28. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 5:15 am |

    I’d also caution you from taking their tongue-in-cheek antics seriously.

    You’re right! It’s all tongue-in-cheek. Listen, do me a favor: Imagine this is all being said about your mom–

    that nose ring is fucking money, rape her immediately

    I know that girl. Shes a feminazi. She’s the person always writing in washington square news about how men should be killed. She’s an incoming 1L. Uber-left wing, crazy bitch about sums it up.

    She would be a good hate fuck.” (Oh–and by the way? The top definition at Urban Dictionary really doesn’t make that sound “fun and consensual.” Can’t you people even READ?)

    I really want to kick her in the box for some reason.

    Are you laughing yet? Laughing at their tongue-in-cheek antics? Because personally, I think it’s hilarious the way the one guy wants to kick your mom in the box “for some reason.”

    I’m pulling that from ONE THREAD. There are plenty more. Despite AutoAdmit’s disclaimer that they take no responsibility for what’s posted on xoxohth.com, I think a few emails to the administrator, citing these and numerous other examples, could easily persuade them that it’s past time to clean house over there. Because it does meet criteria for cyberstalking. Anti-cyberstalking sites DO recommend contacting law enforcement:

    “If you suspect that an online stalker knows your actual location it is imperative that an official report be filed with your local law enforcement agency IMMEDIATELY. This is especially true if threats of physical violence are part of his/her attack.”

    Did I say “recommend?” I meant “insist.”

    Look, I get that you’re a bunch of immature jackasses who thought you were only having a little fun. But you know something?

    You’re in the grown-up world now. And you really, really fucked up with this shit.

  29. SpongeBob
    SpongeBob January 4, 2006 at 5:31 am |

    It would take an extraordinarily broad reading of the relevant statutes to apply cyber-stalking to the situation taking place here.

    I’m not entirely sure how my mom is relevant to the current discussion. She is in no way a public figure and takes pains to not voice her opinions in massively open forums such as public blogs. Your analogy is bad.

    However, for the sake of argument, I would certainly take exception to statements such as those made about my mother, but I wouldn’t take those statements as serious representations of the originator’s sentiments in the current scenario. Taking something seriously and taking offense to something seems to be distinguishable. Express your dislike, but all of this harrassment and cyber-stalking dicussion shows a genuine misunderstanding of the character of the xoxo statements and does a disservice to already tarnished image of lawyers. (This is not to say that the members of xoxo are in any way superior in this regard, merely that you are likewise culpable for the idiotfest).

    As for the grown up world… In the grown up world, people who make unpopular statements are generally met with all sorts of responses. In the grown up world, established feminists such as Maureen Dowd are regularly bashed, mocked, and scorned just as many other opinionated people are (Ralph Nadar, Ann Coultier, George Bush etc.). I’m not sure what grown up world you live in, but the last time I had someone police me for being a meanie who says meanie stuff *tear tear* was in kindergarden.

  30. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 5:35 am |

    That came up on a Google search for “hate fuck,” which I guess means there are yet other threads expressing similar sentiments. Charming indeed.

  31. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 5:36 am |

    7. ilyka Says:

    “January 4th, 2006 at 2:56 am

    Ditto everything Lux said, and I also agree with Robert.

    And I think I owe you an apology–given that your initial post produced as much quality discussion as it did, I retract my recommendation that you pull it. I didn’t realize at the time how LONG this had been going on or how vile it had been getting.

    “Hate-fuck?” Lord, just let me get my hands on that wanker. I’ll show him hate. ”

    sorry, i attributed this to the wrong person here……but here is the evidence that it was said

  32. anashi
    anashi January 4, 2006 at 5:56 am |

    I think the person and not the appendage was being addressed (lol), but I guess you hear what you want to hear. *really goes to bed*

  33. DrSue
    DrSue January 4, 2006 at 8:53 am |

    “No one from xoxohth.com cares enough about you to even talk to you, much less accost you. Dont feel so self-important.”

    Let me try to understand this. Jill posts strong opinions on her own blog. She puts pictures up on said blog, and on sites where students post pictures. These acts justify posters on a public forum in slamming every aspect of her appearance (real or imagined), in posting “Jill sightings,” and in sharing fantasies which, if they are not technically threats, are threatening and creepy. (Unless you think you would enjoy being “hate fucked,” for example.) There are real-world ramifications, such as This goes on for an extended period. When she takes exception, it is a sign of self-importance.

    IOW, she has invited abuse simply by existing as a strong woman with opinions, and her only recourse is to shut up and take it (or relax and enjoy it).

    Just checking. If I’ve misread, please show me how.

  34. Starla
    Starla January 4, 2006 at 8:57 am |

    I think my favorite so far out of all of those comments was this one:

    Date: January 4th, 2006 3:58 AM
    Author: Mr. Plow Underground (I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds)

    it amazes me that people take anything that comes from this board seriously.

    plus, since when is it harassment to talk shit about someone, when its not directly to them?

    (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=332361&forum_id=2#4729540)

    If this person had a job where they practice “diversity” (as they call it where I work), talking about someone whether directly or indirectly classifies as harassment and can be followed up with disciplinary action. Talk to any human resource advisor who is good at their job.

    Heck, I could probably post about my harassment policies at my job here or over there and show them what they are doing does fall under harassment.

  35. That Girl
    That Girl January 4, 2006 at 9:17 am |

    Personally, if there is any castrating I say we use the classic male arguement to explain any hurt or hurt feelings “Gosh, you have no sense of humor, you cant take a joke.”
    That seems to be the general tone of the responses by the “men” on the board.
    Just because one jackass brays and another jackass joins him does not mean the braying was funny or a joke.
    And if, god forfend, something bad should happen to Jill on the NYU campus it wouldnt be the result of a culture of hate that has been allowed to flourish, no doubt it would be from some poor confused male who didnt understand that it was all in fun.
    Jill, I think you are giving far too much credit to the men who are actually posting here because they are just trying to put a pretty face on the hate, which is in many ways worse. By participating on the other board they have already shown their unwillingness to live in a civilized online society, they have shown how low their standards truly are.
    Lie down with dogs and all that.

  36. David Thompson
    David Thompson January 4, 2006 at 9:18 am |

    And I do appreciate all the comments, but the point of the post wasn’t to say, “Please tell me I’m pretty!”

    .teg dluow uoy esnopser fo dnik tahw yltcaxe won yb wonk ot hguone netfo gniht fo tros siht enod ev’ouY . gnicnivnocnu lianed ruoy dnif I

  37. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 9:57 am |

    BTW, if you ladies disagree with my opinion on feminism, just look at your mascot up top. A little girl w/ a shotgun….ummm militant much?

    Irony. Look it up. It’s right after “hate fuck.”

  38. Roxanne
    Roxanne January 4, 2006 at 10:02 am |

    I’ve been thinking about this post and the other overnight. Until I read some of the nastier comments from that other board noted here, I was going to posit a question/comment:

    Are women more offended when someone calls them “stupid” or when someone calls them “ugly.” We get called “stupid” alot in the blogosphere. “Ugly,” not so much.

    Then I was going to tell you, as politely as I could, to suck it up.

    But now that I’ve read some of the more violent, deeply personal attacks on you, I can see how you’d be upset.

  39. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 4, 2006 at 10:07 am |

    Those of you who consider Jill your hero, I hope that it isnt b/c of this

    No, it’s because she reacts calmly and patiently to provocation to which I myself would respond by caving in someone’s septum with a coal shovel.

  40. Thomas
    Thomas January 4, 2006 at 10:28 am |

    Some subhuman said:

    “that nose ring is fucking money, rape her immediately”

    If I find out who that guy is, I’ll make him sorry. And everyone knows I have no sense of humor, so am I kidding?

  41. Ron O.
    Ron O. January 4, 2006 at 10:33 am |

    Please follow ilyka’s advise & report this to the police, the Dean & the site administrator.

    The big reasons why I come here every weekday are because I also value the community you two have built and the way you run your blog.

  42. Snow
    Snow January 4, 2006 at 11:00 am |

    I really hope that someday these guys all have daughters they adore. I suspect it might change their perspectives a bit to see the way their girls are treated by men and society at large.

    I’m falling in the camp that says you should report this, Jill. I’d be incredibly creeped out if I were in your situation.

  43. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax January 4, 2006 at 11:02 am |

    I cannot believe that: a) Jill is being told that all these posts are due to her stirring things up by responding, when she should just be silent and wait for things to die, after she had been silent about it for months and people had gone right on posting this crap. b) The fact that she’s out in the public forum expressing opinions people might disagree with is supposed to make it OK for people to post suggestions that she ought to be raped.

    I’m in the public forum, have been for years. And I’ve been bashed on the Internet, sure. Usually I ignore it. But usually that bashing doesn’t include continuing posts about real life sightings of me, with accompanying comments on my fuckability, and it sure doesn’t usually include any suggestion that I be raped.

  44. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 11:06 am |

    God, I can’t rip myself away from those boards. The funniest thing: lack of reading comprehension. There are still some well-meaning sods who keep trying to say, “I think you’re pretty!”

    Am I on the Ween forum or the Law forum?

  45. August J. Pollak
    August J. Pollak January 4, 2006 at 11:28 am |

    God, I can’t rip myself away from those boards. The funniest thing: lack of reading comprehension. There are still some well-meaning sods who keep trying to say, “I think you’re pretty!”

    Well I wasn’t trying to be a sod when I mentioned that to you before, but I thought it was more relevant to the concept of how dumb the “attack” was in the first place. You’re right that’s it’s not relevant whether or not Jill is beautiful. That she is, though, is what makes the attempt to try some assault on her physicality even more desperate on their part. It’s a message-board equivalent of a drunk dude at the bar getting turned down by a girl he hit on and telling his friends “screw it, she was ugly anyway.”

  46. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 11:43 am |

    It’s a message-board equivalent of a drunk dude at the bar getting turned down by a girl he hit on and telling his friends “screw it, she was ugly anyway.”

    And moving on the next hopeful. Sometime remind me to tell my “prettiest girl in the bar” story. You so reminded me of it.

  47. August J. Pollak
    August J. Pollak January 4, 2006 at 11:44 am |

    So does that mean I was being a dork or I wasn’t? This is why I’m so self-conscious, I hope you know that ;)

  48. zuzu
    zuzu January 4, 2006 at 11:54 am |

    Lauren, I sent you an email.

    Those posts are creepy beyond belief.

  49. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 12:03 pm |

    Dorkesque. We like dorkesque.

  50. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere January 4, 2006 at 12:13 pm |

    At this point, my two cents are just another drop in the bucket, but It’s hard to read any of this stuff, or any of the comments on the board in question, and not want to say something. It sucks that Jill has been put in the position of deciding whether or not to report these guys…and I don’t think it’s an easy decision.

    That said, who are these people who think that they ought to be able to urge others to physically harm somebody (hate-fuck) and that it ought to be ignored, thought of as funny, etc.? How could people talk about ‘Jill sightings’ and think (or not care) that that could be threatening/creepy?

    When 155 says things like, “For you to feel uncomfortable is understandable, felling scared and staying home is crazy though,” it makes me wonder (even though Jill has explained, twice, that staying home wasn’t about feeling scared) what sort of world 155 lives in. Does he live in a world where threats by men against women of physical harm don’t get carried out? I’d be scared, even if Jill isn’t. The whole “you can’t take/see a joke, just let it go, just be quiet about it and it will go away” line of thought is relatively irrational, I’d say, given the evidence that men who have these sorts of attitudes toward women do carry out violence against them. (Which is not to say I have a handle on the men posting on that forum. Perhaps they are some strange subcategory of man such that none of them, even given misogynist and violent views, would ever harm a woman physically. But I doubt it.)

    I appreciate the fact that Jill, Lauren and others have taken the time/effort to not just let these guys threaten people without objection. It sucks that they have to.

  51. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 12:37 pm |

    I’m in the public forum, have been for years. And I’ve been bashed on the Internet, sure. Usually I ignore it. But usually that bashing doesn’t include continuing posts about real life sightings of me, with accompanying comments on my fuckability, and it sure doesn’t usually include any suggestion that I be raped.

    What Jill and Jeffliveshere said. If someone knew where I was and how to find me, and started posting stuff about raping me and physically harming me, of course I’d contact AutoAdmit and school officials. I’d start a paper trail.

    Sane, non-sexist, well-adjusted men don’t treat women this way, online or IRL. My dad doesn’t talk like this. My brother doesn’t talk like this. My boyfriends don’t talk like this. My male friends don’t talk like this. It’s a fucked-up way of relating to women, even women you don’t happen to like. Sarcastic or not–and I think somebody needs to flip past “irony” to “sarcasm”–it’s not funny.

    It’s not crazy or paranoid to take precautions. This is the equivalent of crossing the street when the guy walking behind you mutters, “Fucking bitches. All the fucking same.” Why wait until it escalates, especially since waiting could hurt your chances of getting help later?

  52. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 12:40 pm |

    Oh, and? The proper response to, “I find this scary and threatening,” is not to keep it up, only ten times worse. Again, not how well-adjusted men behave.

  53. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 1:24 pm |

    Oops. I mean, “What Lynn and Jefflives here said.”

  54. Tanooki Joe
    Tanooki Joe January 4, 2006 at 2:00 pm |

    I cannot believe that: a) Jill is being told that all these posts are due to her stirring things up by responding, when she should just be silent and wait for things to die, after she had been silent about it for months and people had gone right on posting this crap. b) The fact that she’s out in the public forum expressing opinions people might disagree with is supposed to make it OK for people to post suggestions that she ought to be raped.

    Yeah, but Jill is a woman, so obviously by objecting at all she’s just being hysterical. I mean, we all know that she would just take the threats and abuse in good humor (perhaps to the lilt of an empty-headed giggle), if she weren’t so filled with feminist man-hate.

    Really, this shit is beyond sick. And then some of these shitheads actually come here and tell Jill not to worry her pretty little head about the rape-talk andthe stalking. Hil-fucking-larious.

    Ugh, I can’t even finish this post, I’m so disgusted.

  55. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 2:10 pm |

    155:

    You would also see that the forum gives interested parties (Law students, proepective LS) a casual environment to discuss issues relevant to school admissions, classes, and social life. Most threads, even the ones which start out questionable (racist, sexist, rude…) develope into serious intellectual conversations naturally. This is a good reflection of the spirit of xoxo posters. They like to have fun, they are extremely intelligent, and they dont take themselves too seriously. A lesson which you might still need to learn.

    1. I’m still waiting for the intellectual conversations on the threads I’ve seen.
    2. Obviously you’ve been skipping over the fart, poop, and masturbation jokes on this blog.

    Fartfully yours,
    Lauren

  56. Jenny K
    Jenny K January 4, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    “Dont feel so self-important.”

    Um, they apparently think you are important enough to spend so much time hurling insults at you, but you really shouldn’t “feel so self-important.”

    yeah….

    oh, and spongebob spongebrains – the point about your mom was not degrees of culpability (as you try to turn the debate toward by mentioning that your mom doesn’t post online) or how seriously Jill should take the comments (and again, you analogy is stupid since obviously someone insulting your mother in order to get at you is unlikely to follow through with the threats – unless they are the mob). It’s that you, and all the other frightening idiots on that board, obviously have a hard time seeing Jill as a person and not just a toy for you to play with. Something you obviously completely missed since the original comment asking you to replace Jill with your mother in no way suggested that the comments were being made to you.

    Dude, seriously, get the fuck over yourself.

  57. nerdlet
    nerdlet January 4, 2006 at 2:27 pm |

    Women (and men, but the men get to be honorary women) who complain about men who call a woman stupid, ugly, and fantasize and joke about physically assaulting or raping her are just as hate-filled as the men who make those comments. It all makes sense now!

    Seriously, don’t law and even pre-law students have to take courses in rhetoric? Is there any logic here?

  58. Starscream
    Starscream January 4, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

    Hello Jill,

    As representative of the xoxo enclave, I come here to offer our apologies on the behalf of my crude brethren. I personally do not think you’re fat or ugly. You’re, without a doubt, grade A fuckable!

    Sincerely,

    Starscream

  59. Starscream
    Starscream January 4, 2006 at 3:32 pm |

    Oh, I just read your post. Sorry about the fuckable comment, didn’t mean it offensively. You’re very pretty.

  60. Thalia
    Thalia January 4, 2006 at 3:43 pm |

    Jill,

    You’re missing the point. When shit like this happens, you don’t sit down and write long blogs about why you’re conflicted about being called fat and ugly because you know it shouldn’t matter and analyzing your reactions to it and shit–you go to the administrator of the board, you go to the dean of students, you go to the police. Girl, you skipped two days of classes because you felt threatened. One of them said he’d like to rape you. That is a threat. No, I’m not a lawyer, no, I don’t know what the laws concerning sexual harassment in your state are, and no, I don’t know if it’s a winnable case in court–but the point is you do not play along with it, or dismiss it as trivial, or worry that you’re overreacting, you tell the authorities.

    Do it!

  61. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm |

    It would take an extraordinarily broad reading of the relevant statutes to apply cyber-stalking to the situation taking place here.

    Really? I think the statute is quite broad enough already:

    N.Y. Penal Law § 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.

    A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

    1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

    (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

    I’m skipping the other two cases as they fortunately do not apply here. But since you take great pains to explain how your mom is not a good analogy because she doesn’t post in a public forum, blah blah blah, let me cut right to the point I was trying to make with that:

    What if she did? Would you tell her to relax, lighten up, and get over it?

    Because just personally, if someone suggested one of my relatives be “raped immediately,” and continually monitored his or her doings online, and knew where to find him or her, should they wish to take any of these tongue-in-cheek ideas to the next level, I’d advise my relative to pursue all possible recourse against the perpetrators.

    I would certainly take exception to statements such as those made about my mother, but I wouldn’t take those statements as serious representations of the originator’s sentiments in the current scenario.

    Again: (1) Far from being atypical, the sentiments I quoted above were SO typical of postings on that board about Jill that she hadn’t even seen the specific ones I quoted–because, when I searched for a phrase she had mentioned seeing at that site, I came up with an entirely different thread because there are just that many of them; (2) The current scenario is, this has been going on for months. The current scenario is, some of these posters do interact with Jill offline and potentially could harm her if they wished to do so. The current scenario is, the harassment has been escalating. After Jill wrote this post I saw three new threads pop up, all devoted to bashing her. There may be even more by now.

    Express your dislike, but all of this harrassment and cyber-stalking dicussion shows a genuine misunderstanding of the character of the xoxo statements and does a disservice to already tarnished image of lawyers.

    Don’t you “poor-lawyers” me, Spongebob. If you’re truly concerned about the tarnished image, here’s a cloth. Start polishing.

    Say! You know what I’m not seeing in any of those threads? Any men brave enough to stand up and say, “You guys are over the line with this. It’s embarrassing and possibly actionable. Knock it off.”

    (This is not to say that the members of xoxo are in any way superior in this regard, merely that you are likewise culpable for the idiotfest).

    Oh, no, I am not. Nor is Jill.

  62. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 4:35 pm |

    Im going to put in my last two cents here…..First of all, for a blog that prides itself on reasoned discussion, there are way too many issues that have been brought up that need to be corrected. The majority of responses to my posts were useless and unrelated.

    So here goes:
    1)Jill + everyone else, not every xoxoer bashed you or threatened you, dont blame the whole board for the idiocy of a few.

    2)I completely understand the other women coming to Jills defense, but for the guys: You really need to figure out a new way to get laid. Yes I love my mother and sister, and believe they are equal if not better than me, and would be upset if this happened to them. But this does not mean that I need to suck up to feminists. And please, for the sake of GOD do not call yourselves feminists – that would be pathetic and hypocritical.

    3)Maybe I didnt say this clearly….Jill, im not telling youy to ignore this b/c you are a woman and should just “take it.” see, thats the problem…This, like most of the things ive read here, is not a men/women issue. This issue is about how to get the best result. In other words, how to stop this from continuing. my suggestion is simply to ignore it. this may be unfortunate, but it is also accurate.

    4) Unfortunately, it appears that Jill is one of the more level-headed and easy-going poster here. Same goes for Lauren. These attacks would be easier to understand if they came against some of the more aggressive posters, or the men here (except for the hate-rape comments.) Jill, I hope you are not too disturbed by these events. Fact is, this is done to men, other women, blacks, gays, and just about everybody on the board. I myself was have been told several hateful things. But thats the difference between xoxo and most sites: FREE SPEECH. And I would say that if KKK marches are still allowed then this pales in comparison.

    Good Luck

  63. Lauren
    Lauren January 4, 2006 at 4:45 pm |

    But thats the difference between xoxo and most sites: FREE SPEECH

    Free speech is real cool and stuff, but this is our blog. xoxo may pride itself on free speech, but we prefer the one-line takedowns point by point. So far all I see from your free speech absolutism is that we are “retarded” and totally not “fuckable.”

    Fair, perhaps, but y’all got pwned. Deal.

  64. ilyka
    ilyka January 4, 2006 at 4:47 pm |

    In other words, how to stop this from continuing. my suggestion is simply to ignore it. this may be unfortunate, but it is also accurate.

    Your suggestion is demonstrably inaccurate, 155. I swear the biggest obstacle you’re going to face if you continue with the law is your COMPLETE INABILITY TO READ:

    So a little background about this board. It came to my attention this summer

    Okay, 155? This has been going on for months. It continues to this day. The Jill-bashing threads draw many posters and appear quite active.

    No one is “overreacting.” No one is “being too sensitive.” If anything, I worry that Jill has been too accommodating to the very people who have expressed nothing but hatred and contempt for her.

    You know what I get from your post? That you’re beginning to feel ashamed about some of the things you wrote. Hey, guess what? You’re supposed to be ashamed of vile behavior! But don’t you dare turn around and try to pin that icky feeling you’ve got on her or on any of the other posters here. The posters here have all been vastly kinder to you and your friends than you’ve been to Jill, and you know it.

  65. Shinobi
    Shinobi January 4, 2006 at 4:50 pm |

    “The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.”

    I wonder what kind of slime is at the non prestigious discussion boards. I’m sure their future employers would LOVE to know what kinds of things their lawyers feel is appropirate to publish in a public forum. I do

    Sorry Jill, enjoy your painkillers and try not to let this harsh your mellow too much. You’re Awesome, and I love this blog.

  66. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    first of all, unlike on your blog, we at xoxo dont know eachother and therefore arent really “friends,” though there are several people i have grown to like there. Most importantly…..I HAVE NEVER POSTED A SINGLE OFFENSIVE THING ABOUT JILL!!! guess what, you should be ashamed for making that assumption simply b/c im male and from xoxo.

  67. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    Don’t let the door and all that.

    1)Jill + everyone else, not every xoxoer bashed you or threatened you, dont blame the whole board for the idiocy of a few.

    Those threads are divided into the following two groups: people who are part of the problem, and people who are part of the problem. Sitting in front of your screen with your thumbs up your ass while other people on a message board you frequent bash and threaten women is not better in any real sense from bashing and threatening them yourself. When people say shit like that here, we come down on them–even when the target is someone like Ann Coulter. The whole board is culpable.

    2)I completely understand the other women coming to Jills defense, but for the guys: You really need to figure out a new way to get laid. Yes I love my mother and sister, and believe they are equal if not better than me, and would be upset if this happened to them. But this does not mean that I need to suck up to feminists. And please, for the sake of GOD do not call yourselves feminists – that would be pathetic and hypocritical.

    But you haven’t thought through the issue enough to understand that loving people means standing up for them when people use language that demeans them and trivializes hateful violence against them. Inappropriate sexualization of feminists isn’t characteristic of this board, mkay? Besides, I don’t want to sleep with Jill. She wears too much makeup.

    3)Maybe I didnt say this clearly….Jill, im not telling youy to ignore this b/c you are a woman and should just “take it.” see, thats the problem…This, like most of the things ive read here, is not a men/women issue. This issue is about how to get the best result. In other words, how to stop this from continuing. my suggestion is simply to ignore it. this may be unfortunate, but it is also accurate.

    It’s a man/woman thing because ignoring this shit and permitting the guys who put it out there to continue doing so is a strategy recommended to women throughout history. Works about as well as you might think. Women who have a lot more experience with being threatened and cyberstalked say differently: Jill shouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

    4) Unfortunately, it appears that Jill is one of the more level-headed and easy-going poster here. Same goes for Lauren. These attacks would be easier to understand if they came against some of the more aggressive posters, or the men here (except for the hate-rape comments.) Jill, I hope you are not too disturbed by these events. Fact is, this is done to men, other women, blacks, gays, and just about everybody on the board. I myself was have been told several hateful things. But thats the difference between xoxo and most sites: FREE SPEECH. And I would say that if KKK marches are still allowed then this pales in comparison.

    v.s. “door.” Last time I checked, black people and gay people were also subject to harassment and assault IRL. Even if your site is an equal-opportunity offender–which I doubt, given the sheer volume of posts devoted to Jill and Jill alone–that doesn’t mean Jill shouldn’t take threats against Jill seriously.

  68. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm |

    very clever ang very wrong bud…..I think Ill wait for Jill to respond, she counts.

  69. Tanooki Joe
    Tanooki Joe January 4, 2006 at 5:04 pm |

    But thats the difference between xoxo and most sites: FREE SPEECH.

    Yes, yes. Free speech doesn’t mean you’re free from getting called out on your shit. Really, criticism is not censorship. Dumbass.

    2)I completely understand the other women coming to Jills defense, but for the guys: You really need to figure out a new way to get laid. Yes I love my mother and sister, and believe they are equal if not better than me, and would be upset if this happened to them. But this does not mean that I need to suck up to feminists. And please, for the sake of GOD do not call yourselves feminists – that would be pathetic and hypocritical.

    Indeed. Men never do anything, ever, out of actual conviction, or because they care for a person. That a man and a women could relate to each other on equal terms (for a man to treat a women as something other than a walking vagina, even!) is absurd. Indeed, we exist only to manipulate women and then violate them.[/moron]

    So yeah, fuck you.

    And I would say that if KKK marches are still allowed then this pales in comparison.

    Women in Saudia Arabia have less rights/there are starving children in Africa/at least you have your health, so be thankful and get back in line!

    Ugh, I need a shower now.

  70. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 5:05 pm |

    guess what, you should be ashamed for making that assumption simply b/c im male and from xoxo.

    I guess the whole “male + from xanth = complacent” thing was right on, though.

    very clever ang very wrong bud…..I think Ill wait for Jill to respond, she counts.

    Whenever you come up with a response, I’ll be here.

  71. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 4, 2006 at 5:06 pm |

    but for the guys: You really need to figure out a new way to get laid.

    Not being a sniveling little misogynistic asshole has worked great for me over the last thirty-some years.

    You ought to try it.

  72. Joe
    Joe January 4, 2006 at 5:11 pm |

    What’s a “Vdare racist type”?

  73. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager January 4, 2006 at 5:18 pm |

    For those arguing that those posts are representative of the board in general, or are suggesting that Jill complain the owner, I would suggest reading this post at Leiter’s blog:

    Penn Law Student, Anthony Ciolli, Admits to Running Prelaw Discussion Board Awash in Racist, Anti-Semitic, Sexist Abuse

    It is quite an eye-opener on how vile that site is, and clearly shows that those threads are quite representative for the discussion board.

    Oh, and I love their description of their site as “The Most Prestigious Admissions & Career Website in the World” – well, you know what, you are mostly unknown in the US, and you certainly are unknown outside the US.
    And if you are so prestigious, why are all the posters at the discussion board not using their real names?

  74. TubaFrog
    TubaFrog January 4, 2006 at 5:32 pm |

    Penn Law Student, Anthony Ciolli, Admits to Running Prelaw Discussion Board Awash in Racist, Anti-Semitic, Sexist Abuse

    What’s the problem? These all seem like legitiamte topics.

  75. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 4, 2006 at 5:35 pm |

    What’s a “Vdare racist type”?

    I’ll paste the URL text so as not to attract the slavering hordes:

    vdare[dot]com

  76. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 4, 2006 at 5:36 pm |

    oops. oh well.

  77. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager January 4, 2006 at 5:39 pm |

    What’s a “Vdare racist type”?

    VDARE is a far-right racist website, that tries to conceal it’s racism behind “immigration reduction”. SPLC has a pretty good article about VDARE, and the people behind it.

  78. Josh
    Josh January 4, 2006 at 5:39 pm |

    Jeez, I think you’re pretty. And smart. And righteous. And Strong. And you like dogs. That is, awful darn close to perfect. So, who cares about the mentally-challenged screed some dim-bulbs? You sure as hell shouldn’t.

  79. Joe
    Joe January 4, 2006 at 5:48 pm |

    Does Rob Sanchez (the author of an article posted on the front-page of Vdare) hate Hispanics?

    Do you treat SPLC and similarly situated groups (e.g. the ADL) as neutral and unbiased hate “watchdog groups”?

    … I did a bit more research. It seems that Vdare celebrated the day, mockingly, that they were added to SPLC’s list of “hate groups.” They wear it as a badge of honor, owing their recognition as such to their success in agitating the far leftist SPLC, which has ruined more lives and careers than you’d care to know. They’ve done far more damage to talented and honest writers than xoxo could ever do to poor Jill.

  80. 155
    155 January 4, 2006 at 5:48 pm |

    thank you for your valid response jill….i knew you were reasonable…now please remove my IP. I dont care what u do w/ it, u obviously have it. I dont want others to have it. thanx

  81. piny
    piny January 4, 2006 at 6:05 pm |

    Does Rob Sanchez (the author of an article posted on the front-page of Vdare) hate Hispanics?

    Hey, did you know that Tammy Bruce is a lesbian?

  82. zuzu
    zuzu January 4, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    And Phyllis Schlafly is a woman.

    Oh, 155, honey, you’re crying free speech and you’re a law student?

    Have you not gone over this in Con Law? You know, the Constitution only limits government power and all?

  83. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager January 4, 2006 at 6:15 pm |

    Do you treat SPLC and similarly situated groups (e.g. the ADL) as neutral and unbiased hate “watchdog groups”?

    I didn’t know that neither SPLC nor ADL claims to be neutral. As a matter of fact, they are open about being in opposition to certain positions.

    What I have found is that SPLC (and to a lesser degrre ADL) are very well researched, factually correct, and quite precise in their judgement. So, when SPLC, or similar organizations, write an article like the one I linked to, I take it quite serious. I don’t leave it at that, but read other stuff, including the material producued by the target of the article, and draw my conclusions from that.
    From all I’ve seen and read, VDARE is unappologetic racist, though they try to hide it behind a layer of civility and political speech.

  84. Joe
    Joe January 4, 2006 at 6:25 pm |

    How can Vdare be unapologetically racist and hide it at the same time?

    Vdare rarely writes about blacks but principally about Hispanic immigration. Is Rob Sanchez an Hispanic Uncle Tom? Does he hate himself?

    Chronicles Magazine has detailed the factual inaccuracies and quotations taken out of context by SPLC. Vdare has also written on occassion about specific instances of fact manipulation by SPLC. (Yes, I could provide links but I don’t feel like finding them.)

    A good rule of thumb: if the group employs writers that write like op-ed writers, then you should probably take what they say with a grain of salt. SPLC would be taken far more seriously if it simply reported the facts and let its readers decide whether they constituted “hate.”

    I’ve read far too many blogs and far too many newspapers(!) that have cited SPLC as the ultimate authority on whether a group espouses “hate.”

  85. JCM
    JCM January 4, 2006 at 6:28 pm |

    As a female that has been a regular poster on xoxo (and the site that preceded it) for five + years, I have to say that all you are doing is tossing gasoline on the fire.

    Seriously. These boys get a rise out of provoking random people they don’t know. Listen to me on this one. You are in NO DANGER, except in danger of being made a fool out of. Everytime you freak out and post more, you are teased and made fun of even more. The best way to stop this situation is to ignore, ignore, ignore. Or better yet, be self-deprecating. Don’t take it personally. And don’t freak out.

    Take this as free advice from me to you. I suggest you heed this advice. Or keep stressing out. Whatever. I just think this is getting pretty pathetic.

  86. Hubris
    Hubris January 4, 2006 at 7:33 pm |

    You are in NO DANGER, except in danger of being made a fool out of.

    I don’t think Jill is the one exposed that danger here, actually.

  87. jarrettholst
    jarrettholst January 4, 2006 at 8:16 pm |

    Well, just to let 155 and any other mouth-breathers know, I’m married and have no need to pretend to be a feminist to get laid:

    I’m always baffled by these men who believe that you have to survive some kind of harsh and brutal treatment from the hands of others in order to ‘make it in the real world’. (That Men’s News Daily is a prime example of this garbage.) Nice to know that cruelty and criminal behavior should be considered a part of everyday life. If you’re ever puzzled as to why the world is a fucked-up place, just remember people like them.

    I’m sorry that anyone is treated like this and I hope that this crap stops soon. Jill, you have my sympathies.

  88. Christopher
    Christopher January 4, 2006 at 8:27 pm |

    Jeez, what’s with you Jill? Feeling angry at people who say rude things about you? Feeling weirded out that people you know are talking shit about you behind your back?Talking about your feelings with your friends?!

    Clearly, behaviors like this prove that all feminists are complete nutcases. Because no other humans feel this way. Why, people have been throwing eggs at me every time I go out for years, and you don’t see me complaining!

  89. Mark
    Mark January 4, 2006 at 8:38 pm |

    Clearly, behaviors like this prove that all feminists are complete nutcases.

    Yes, yes you completely proved that. No, no it isn’t any big leap…

  90. Ivan
    Ivan January 4, 2006 at 9:46 pm |

    OMG- I don’t know where to start.

    Jill- I am totally impressed with how you have dealt with this whole ordeal. U R tough.

    155- I’m a male feminist, I know thinking people should be treated equally is a wacky idea, but thats me. I don’t have any trouble getting laid. As Chris Clarke said

    Not being a sniveling little misogynistic asshole has worked great for me over the last thirty-some years.

    None of men I know would even think about acting this way,

    “Hate-fuck” Jesus.

    Please tell your board buddies to knock this shit off and leave Jill alone so that our paths don’t have to cross any more.

  91. matt
    matt January 4, 2006 at 10:12 pm |

    I just wanted to make it an even 100. (So no one comment after me.)

    Even the most cowardly jackoff suddenly thinks he’s grown a pair when he can behind an alias and an IP address. I bet next to none of them would say the shit they’re spewing to your face.

  92. vaughn
    vaughn January 4, 2006 at 10:33 pm |

    Jill,

    Ignore ‘em; the idiots who wrote what they did need glasses. Assuming they have the eye/nerve/brain link that corrective lenses can work on.

    I doubt it.

    Vaughn

  93. Joel Sax
    Joel Sax January 4, 2006 at 11:38 pm |

    Dear Jill:

    Boy, I wish these turkies were in California. You could swear out restraining orders against them based on their declarations of a desire to rape you and fuck up their law careers royally just by going to class every day. (They couldn’t come within a thousand yards of you….) Given your student status, you could even do it for free.

    If New York has such a law, use it. Otherwise, you should go to the Dean and, if the Dean does nothing, go to The Times. Play some hardball.

    This is sexual harassment pure and simple. The administrators of the bulletin board where this is being allowed to go on should either be made to take sensitivity courses or made to run a course along which people shouted derogatory comments about their genitals.

  94. Noli Irritare Leones  » Blog Archive   » He’s just doing it because he likes you

    [...] #8217;re in bigger bodies, and with a viciousness that’s been honed over the years. Jill of Feministe encountered such men, at an online board frequented by fellow stu [...]

  95. mr.plow
    mr.plow January 5, 2006 at 2:27 am |

    jesus fucking christ people. get a grip. its a stupid internet chat board where the policy is anything goes. if you are offended by the content then don’t visit the site. problem solved.

    i still think it’s high comedy that so many people are suggesting that jill contact the police and especially the dean. what the hell would the dean do?

    and there are so many straw men being set up. “what if this stuff was said about your mother?” how stupid is that? either people accept the fact this shit is out there or they don’t. for people to think that changing their emotional connection to the insulted some how changes the situation sound unprincipled.

    but everyone here needs to stop taking themselves so seriously. listening to you it sounds like xoxo supports crimes against humanity

  96. Eleanor
    Eleanor January 5, 2006 at 5:28 am |

    “Can’t you take a joke?” is the lamest and most intellectually bankrupt strategy ever for trying to avoid admitting you’ve behaved like a moron. There’s certainly a sense-of-humor problem somewhere in this, but it’s not Jill’s.

  97. DrSue
    DrSue January 5, 2006 at 7:55 am |

    4) Unfortunately, it appears that Jill is one of the more level-headed and easy-going poster here. Same goes for Lauren.

    This is a classic example of what psychologists call “splitting”: the attempt to purchase power or legitimacy for oneself or one’s group through breaking up an alliance. See, Jill and Lauren are attractive and easygoing, not like those shrill feminists or whiny male wannabes. It’s not gonna work here, 155.

  98. Lux Fiat
    Lux Fiat January 5, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    I just have to move up to the “minor leagues” with people named Gonzman.

    His writing may be minor-league, but he has an Olympic-level mullet.

  99. That Girl
    That Girl January 5, 2006 at 12:18 pm |

    JCM – ignoring the fire does not put it out. You cannot control anyone else’s behavior. They started this without any provocation from Jill and telling Jill to control her own behavior so that (fingers crossed) they will eventually stop is ridiculous.
    I hope very much for your sake that you do not adopt this strategy in real life because it will only make you a victim.

  100. Hugo
    Hugo January 5, 2006 at 12:58 pm |

    Whoops, Jill, Gonz is one of my long-time trolls,and I sent him your way. He manages to combine nastiness with a proclaimed solid Christian faith, which exasperates and bewilders me.

  101. Terry
    Terry January 5, 2006 at 2:21 pm |

    Hey Jill – heard about this group of all-stars. If you figure out who these chumps are, let me know and I’ll be happy to help out with the ass-kicking. These guys are idiots and, worse, total assholes, and a good round of public humiliation is just what they need.

  102. KSJ
    KSJ January 5, 2006 at 3:17 pm |

    Jill,

    As an NYU alumna (M.A. ’05) I’m disgusted and ashamed at what’s happening to you.

    I hope you won’t let their exhortations prevent you from going to the Dean with this. Your (brilliant) commenters have refuted any of the “come on, you can’t tell me that deep down you don’t think rape is funny too” or “you’re just being a hysterical girl, people are threatened with rape all the time and it only sometimes results in actual rape” arguments.

    Ilyka said it – better these boys grow up and learn the consequences of their actions now, when all they’ll face is expulsion. (Though, in fairness, given the discussions over there, I’m not entirely convinced that any of them have graduated middle school.)

  103. Jay Smooth
    Jay Smooth January 5, 2006 at 3:57 pm |

    Mr. Plow says “jesus fucking christ people. get a grip. its a stupid internet chat board where the policy is anything goes. if you are offended by the content then don’t visit the site. problem solved.”

    But this sentiment is contradicted by his own actions.

    When folks on this blog spoke critically of him and the message board he frequents, did he “get a grip” and consider the “problem solved” by not visiting the site?

    Quite the opposite, he made numerous posts, both here and on the other board, speaking against what he read. (And needless to say, what he reacted to doesn’t even approach 1/1000th of the ugliness Jill was reacting to.)

    This “lighten up” defense is indeed intellectually bankrupt, and nobody shows this more clearly than those who hide behind it, once they find that shoe on the other foot..

  104. The Biscuit Queen
    The Biscuit Queen January 5, 2006 at 3:58 pm |

    Jill, while I agree that the things said about you were pretty bad-no one likes being called fat and ugly, or scrawney and ugly for that matter-this is the internet, and people will say nasty things.

    That said, Gonz and company did not publish the original insults. They had nothing to do with them. He did point out that if you are going to be this thin skinned then you are going to have problems. He is right.

    Hey Jill – heard about this group of all-stars. If you figure out who these chumps are, let me know and I’ll be happy to help out with the ass-kicking. These guys are idiots and, worse, total assholes, and a good round of public humiliation is just what they need.

    His writing may be minor-league, but he has an Olympic-level mullet.

    People here are no better than Gonzo, or the guys who originally insulted you. He, myself, and others on the blog are being insulted and ‘threatened’. Yet we know it is the internet-we get over it.

    There are women on Gonzo’s blog, we are treated with respect and equality. I am a part of the greater men’s movement, and there too I am treated with respect and equality. You get what you give.

    I am sorry that you are getting the backlash to spreading misandry. It isn’t ‘right,’ it isn’t fun. There are men who behave childishly. As there are women who do the same. Personally, i think it is a coward’s way out. However, perhaps amid the cat calls and insults there is a point, a justifyable anger, that you are not seeing. The actions may not be appropriate, but the anger very well might be.

  105. mr.plow
    mr.plow January 5, 2006 at 4:35 pm |

    Jay Smooth Says:
    January 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    “Mr. Plow says “jesus fucking christ people. get a grip. its a stupid internet chat board where the policy is anything goes. if you are offended by the content then don’t visit the site. problem solved.”

    But this sentiment is contradicted by his own actions.

    When folks on this blog spoke critically of him and the message board he frequents, did he “get a grip” and consider the “problem solved” by not visiting the site?

    Quite the opposite, he made numerous posts, both here and on the other board, speaking against what he read. (And needless to say, what he reacted to doesn’t even approach 1/1000th of the ugliness Jill was reacting to.)

    there is no condradiction. I never questioned people’s choice or right to post what they want on this blog or on xoxo. I never complained that people have crossed the line. I just responded. just because i advocate that people who are offended by the content of xoxo should aviod the site, doesn’t mean that its a condradiction to respond to comments i disagree with. The difference is i understand and respect other’s right to say whatever they want about me or anyone else. when i thought someone made an incorrect statement about me, i responded with my opinion and then let it go. “if you are offended by xoxo then don’t visit” is not the same as “if you disagree with something run away.”

    “This “lighten up” defense is indeed intellectually bankrupt, and nobody shows this more clearly than those who hide behind it, once they find that shoe on the other foot.. “”

    no. its only intellectually bankrupt if you don’t understand it. responding to posts here or on xoxo doesn’t necessarily mean someone has to lighten up. when people start talking about crimes being commited and going to authorities, then they do need to lighten up, because they are taking everything way too seriously. I responded to your comment, but i don’t really take this or anything else here seriously, in the sense that i don’t try to make it more important than a couple of jackasses arguing over the internet. so just because i choose to participate in these shinanigans, doesn’t mean i’m taking it too seriously, it just means i’m bored

  106. Feministe » Lighten Up
    Feministe » Lighten Up January 5, 2006 at 4:45 pm |

    [...]

    Home

    1.5.2006

    Lighten Up
    Posted by Lauren @ 4:44 pm

    At what point should rape threats not be taken seriously?

    [...]

  107. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 5:23 pm |

    KSJ –

    “better these boys grow up and learn the consequences of their actions now, when all they’ll face is expulsion”

    explain it to me like a 2nd grader… how on earth do you think someone posting something you don’t approve of be grounds from expulsion from law school? Even if the comments were to be taken seriously – which would make them horrible – is NYU going to act that severely based on a message board? Or is this also part of the problem?

    (and yes, law student asks for explanation at 2nd grade level. har har.)

  108. Jay Smooth
    Jay Smooth January 5, 2006 at 5:25 pm |

    Mr. Plow dost protesteth quite a bit, for someone who’s not taking anything seriously. :) My impression as expressed above is only reinforced by his response, and I’m reminded of the discussion sparked here, about what lies beneath this disdain for “taking things too seriously”.

    But I will leave it at that, don’t want to clog up this fine blog with any further back-and-forth on it.. The bottom line is it’s absolutely proper, maybe even essential, for behavior like this to be taken seriously and counteracted. Bravo to Jill and the others here for your stellar work in doing so.

  109. flyinfur
    flyinfur January 5, 2006 at 5:32 pm |

    Sometimes threats are the preliminary acts before carrying out the crime. Threats should be taken seriously, because the consequences to the victim can be severe. It is easier for you to NOT make a threat than it is for a victim to deal with consequences of a serious crime later.

    I have worked in mental health for the past 15 years. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard, “Well I didn’t think s/he really MEANT that!” in relation to hurting oneself or hurting someone else.

    How do we know it’s “only in fun”? Because you say so? That’s not good enough when it’s a threat.

    Do I think it ought to get you expelled from law school? It would sure get you expelled from medical school or nursing school. And you could forget about psychology, too. Maybe lawyers don’t have such high standards.

  110. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 5:37 pm |

    explain it to me like a 2nd grader… how on earth do you think someone posting something you don’t approve of be grounds from expulsion from law school?

    Okay, I’ll bite.

    This isn’t merely “something you don’t approve of.” The posts on that board — particularly the ones which state that Jill should be raped immediately and/or hate-fucked — at the very least arguably come under the definition of cyberstalking. They’re also fairly specific and credible threats of bodily harm against a specific, real, live person, a person whose location and identity is known to the posters.

    And that’s just the New York State laws. The NYU code of conduct is a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

    Law schools, you see, tend to frown on their students making specific and credible threats of bodily harm against other students or members of the general public. Should Jill decide to put the school on notice that their students are making such threats, there’s at least a question of whether the school owes her a duty to put a stop to this behavior. Once the school is on notice and even thinks it may have a duty, it’s going to cover its ass right quick. And said ass-covering may well include disciplinary action against and/or expulsion of the offending students.

    It’s also the kind of thing that goes on your Permanent Record, the kind of thing that the Committee on Character & Fitness may be interested in a couple of years down the line.

    Mother of God, people, haven’t any of you taken Torts?

  111. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere January 5, 2006 at 5:48 pm |

    zuzu says:

    Law schools, you see, tend to frown on their students making specific and credible threats of bodily harm against other students or members of the general public.

    zuzu, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the way you generally put things clearly and succinctly.

  112. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 5:54 pm |

    Thankee!

  113. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 5:58 pm |

    zuzu-

    I’ve taken torts. And crim. My textbooks clearly have different definitions of credible than yours. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I would think a law school would want a little more than a sarcastic message board post to justify losing out on $37,150.

  114. ilyka
    ilyka January 5, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    I would think a law school would want a little more than a sarcastic message board post to justify losing out on $37,150.

    Speaking of that patience I lack:

    On this, and other threads here, you and other “what’s the big deal” posters from xoxo have had it explained to you, with citations, numerous times, that both by guidelines posted on anti-stalking web sites, AND BY NY STATE LAW, many of the comments posted in those threads meet criteria for harassment. The anti-stalking resource I linked in God-I-don’t-even-remember-now thread even states explicitly that if the posters making these remarks know your location, they, the anti-stalker help people, WILL NOT take your case, offer you advice, or in any way assist you, unless the incidents have first been reported to local law enforcement officials.

    Why? Because clearly experience has taught them to take these matters seriously, and by demanding that complainants go through law enforcement, they reduce the risk of liability to themselves if they advise someone incorrectly, and Bad Things Happen as a result.

    Okay, genius? Are we clear? Can I please not have to post this again?

    Furthermore, you’re to blame for much of this. You’re the initiator of most of the threads that have gone up about Jill in the last few days. So: Want people not to take this so seriously?

    Then back off when it’s been made clear to you that Jill doesn’t find this as funny as you do.

    Otherwise, you look pretty serious to me. Obstinacy and persistence in the face of “hey, knock it off,” is not a common trait of aspiring humorists.

  115. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 6:16 pm |

    yeah, try and implicate me. cute. my comments on xo were about the piss poor logic that posters like yourself have tried to use. I’m not the one who made the comments that she did not approve of. I came over to defend the shitstorm of overreaction that people like yourself have helped brew up.

    Okay, genius? Are we clear? You don’t get to arrest everyone who has ever posted on XO because of the actions of a few.

  116. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 5, 2006 at 6:17 pm |

    I swore I wasn’t going to post here, but I just have to respond to this drivel.

    This isn’t merely “something you don’t approve of.” The posts on that board — particularly the ones which state that Jill should be raped immediately and/or hate-fucked — at the very least arguably come under the definition of cyberstalking

    Cyberstalking? Do you even know what that term means? Here’s a definition from crimelibrary.com:

    Cyberstalking, which is simply an extension of the physical form of stalking, is where the electronic mediums such as the Internet are used to pursue, harass or contact another in an unsolicited fashion.

    Considering that none of the individuals have (by Jill’s own admission) attempted to “pursue, harass or contact” her online, (let alone in person), calling this cyberstalking is a very big stretch.

    They’re also fairly specific and credible threats of bodily harm

    Credible? You intend to prove this… how exactly?

    FYI, the guy who made the post in question is a sophomore at Texas A&M University who has never set foot in New York or anywhere in the northeast. Furthermore, that specific poster has a Howard Stern-like reputation and is known to say many inappropriate things for shock value. In fact, this same poster, after seeing the uproar its caused on here, apologized and asked for people to stop discussing the matter (but of course neither Lauren nor Jill felt the need to point that out).

    against a specific, real, live person, a person whose location and identity is known to the posters.

    How is her location known? Her address was never posted. All people know is that she goes to NYU, which she herself has made public knowledge on this blog.

    And that’s just the New York State laws. The NYU code of conduct is a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

    Good luck enforcing New York state laws and the NYU code of conduct against people who neither live in New York nor attend NYU. Assuming, of course, you can even identify these people, and assuming that New York state or NYU felt these were things were even worth pursuing (they wouldn’t, since any unbiased third party looking at the posts in context rather than as standalones would know that no real harm was ever intended).

    Law schools, you see, tend to frown on their students making specific and credible threats of bodily harm against other students or members of the general public.

    Yes, they do… however, believe it or not you have to actually prove that threats are “specific and credible.” I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but not even a dean of students (let alone a law enforcement officer) would merely take your word for it without looking at all the facts.

    Should Jill decide to put the school on notice that their students are making such threats, there’s at least a question of whether the school owes her a duty to put a stop to this behavior.

    I’d love to hear how NYU intends to get anonymous individuals who almost certainly do not even attend NYU to stop calling a student fat on an independent messageboard that NYU does not control. What’s NYU going to do, have the dean of students put his hand through the computer monitor and strangle the guy on the other end as he types that Jill is ugly?

    Once the school is on notice and even thinks it may have a duty, it’s going to cover its ass right quick. And said ass-covering may well include disciplinary action against and/or expulsion of the offending students.

    Once again, you’re making many unfounded assumptions there, namely that

    1) the school has a duty
    2) the individuals can be identified
    3) the individuals go to NYU
    4) the threats were credible
    5) the threats are worthy of disciplinary action

    You have to prove all these things; you can’t just say “OMG that guy said he wants to rape her, expel him and send him to jail!”

    It’s also the kind of thing that goes on your Permanent Record, the kind of thing that the Committee on Character & Fitness may be interested in a couple of years down the line.

    Yeah, because the character & fitness reviewers are going to disqualify you from law practice because you called a girl ugly on an internet message board. Newsflash: an alum of my law school actually physically beat his wife, and even admitted to it and still passed character & fitness (though the idiot later got disbarred for unrelated reasons). Now, you might think character & fitness should take these things into account, but whether you like it or not you’re not going to prevent someone from taking the bar over this kind of nonsense.

    Mother of God, people, haven’t any of you taken Torts?

    Mother of God, haven’t you heard of a limited purpose public figure?

  117. biosparite
    biosparite January 5, 2006 at 6:18 pm |

    If any NYU male law graduates come here looking for a job in Houston, I shall give them all a very hard look and a serious grilling about sexual harassment. For all its reputation as a top-10 law school, I am seriously under-impressed with the postings I have seen from these presumably highly-talented law students. This kind of hatred does have consequences, boys. You may trip across those consequences at my firm.

  118. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 6:22 pm |

    maybe you could just force them on that horrible light rail of yours

  119. ilyka
    ilyka January 5, 2006 at 6:27 pm |

    I came over to defend the shitstorm of overreaction

    Bzzt! NO. It is not a “shitstorm of overreaction” when you ignore something for over six months, it doesn’t go away or get better, and yet–when you finally call it out?

    Well, let’s just say I’m not finding Jill to be nearly as popular a topic of conversation on xoxo as she was even two days ago.

    Own up: You fellas aren’t over here telling everyone to lighten up because you think that’s what’s best for Jill. You’re over here telling everyone to lighten up because you’re resentful that your fun got spoiled. You’re hoping that once everyone “settles down” and “quits calling you an asshole,” you can resume business as usual.

    I don’t have to “try” to implicate you; anyone can Google “doc lewis site:xoxohth.com” and see for themselves. You stirred shit up, it got blown back at you, too fucking bad, grow up.

    But don’t listen to me. Listen to biosparite, because that’s who’s got your future by the balls. Not me. I am not the least bit interested in arresting anyone; I think you’re doing a fine job of being your own worst punishment.

  120. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 6:32 pm |

    I would think a law school would want a little more than a sarcastic message board post to justify losing out on $37,150.

    Oh, honey. They keep the tuition. And there are plenty more students clamoring to make up that shortfall.

    Really. You’re fungible. Whether at at top ten law school or a big firm, there are a thousand just like you. And if you run afoul of the NYPD’s computer crime unit because of rape threats, you certainly won’t be endearing yourself to future employers.

  121. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 5, 2006 at 6:56 pm |

    Express your dislike, but all of this harrassment and cyber-stalking dicussion shows a genuine misunderstanding of the character of the xoxo statements and does a disservice to already tarnished image of lawyers

    Some of you fools-in-training need to look up the definition of “assault.”

    Not “battery,” “assault.”

    The continuation of the harrassing posts, after the originating parties have admitted that the party who is the target of their posts is aware of the harrassing posts, makes the continuing posting as “assault,” as the harrassers are them deliberatly attempting to induce fear.

    The law does not *care* if the attempt to induce feaf or intimidation is successful or not. It is the demonstrated *intent* to do so.

    And that isn’t some “PC” definition or something decided by some “activist judge,” it predates Blackstone.

    I have relatives who are lawyers.

    I even have family who are in politics.

    So your bad example has the potential to cause ill will toward my relatives by association of profession.

    And *you* and your companions in that forum are providing both the tar and the brush for denigration of of the legal profession.

  122. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 5, 2006 at 7:36 pm |

    155:

    first of all, unlike on your blog, we at xoxo dont know eachother and therefore arent really “friends,” though there are several people i have grown to like there. Most importantly…..I HAVE NEVER POSTED A SINGLE OFFENSIVE THING ABOUT JILL!!! guess what, you should be ashamed for making that assumption simply b/c im male and from xoxo.

    As I said in another esponse to you — you are defending the objectionable material, and the posters. Have you p;osted publicly in that forum that what is being said is, as someone else succinctly pointed out “over the line and possibly actionable?”

    And there certainly *Iare* members of that forum who do associate with each other IRL, they have stated such in the forum.

    Here’s a bit of free advice.

    Ask one of your professors who is lawyer working in a big firm just what the employment prospects are for someone who has gone to the effort and expense to go through law school, taken the bar, and tghe background check for an employer turns up even an *accusation* of harrassment of any sort, and most especially an accusation of stalking and sexual harrassment.

    Ask that professor just how much any legal form wants to chance having to increase either their E-&-O insurance premiums or their self-insurance set-aside.

    Then ask him just how provable it would be that any denial of an offer (or withdrawl of offer or even termination of employment) would be in that basis.

    And remember this — law firms have a lot on the line in hiring — and they want to make sure that any “properties” they invest in are going to profitable to them. ANd if they have any questions about the future profitability, ranging from possible malpractice with clients, harrassment suits in the workplace, or even the loss of an associate’s work product because of an outside civil complaint or criminal action, they are much more likley to take a pass on tyhat investment and look further.

    This isn’t the carrer prospects of a position such as cab driver or street sweeper, but of a highly-paid, very competetive profession.

    — ————-
    JCM —

    …Seriously. These boys get a rise out of provoking random people they don’t know. Listen to me on this one. You are in NO DANGER…

    Ahh, I see. “Boys will be boys,” eh?

    And what about when one these “boys” decides that Jill needs to be “taught a lesson,” and it doesn’t matter couse she hates men anyway and needs to find outr what a real good f*ck is like?”

    Have *you* told these idiots that what they are doing is over the line? Do *you* find them such good buddies that there is absolutly *no* question in their minds that they will not act on their statements?

    If you think so you need to talk to some of the people who are doing case work in criminal law. You may not be so sure after that.

    ————-

    Jill and Lauren —

    I apologize for having cluttered up your cpomments section with some longish posts. If you wish, I would be glad to invite some of these participants over to mine own blog to continue the discussion, and I’ll even open up a starter thread for them.

    However, I’ve not yet done much disenvolelment, so my touch with the scalpel may not be as deft as some others.

    CHeers!

  123. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 7:49 pm |

    Oh, honey. They keep the tuition. And there are plenty more students clamoring to make up that shortfall.

    in case you didn’t know, a legal education lasts more than one year. if you kick someone out they don’t finish. ASU just let a convicted murderer graduate, knowing full well he had no chance of passing character and fitness. they’re a business.

    Really. You’re fungible. Whether at at top ten law school or a big firm, there are a thousand just like you. And if you run afoul of the NYPD’s computer crime unit because of rape threats, you certainly won’t be endearing yourself to future employers.

    Thanks for trying to teach me. Next time bother to figure out who you’re talking to before you decide every person associating with the site is the person you’re so greatly offended with. I’ll be my door broken down by the computer crim unit about as soon as you will be. After all, you are directly communicating with someone who posted on a website where someone else posted something that may or may not fall afoul of the law!

  124. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 7:53 pm |

    ilyaka… she never was a big topic of conversation. look at the post by the anon xo poster on the other thread. the fractured logic of the commenters here has been more popular than Jill ever was/will be.

    on our site things remain business as usual, regardless of whether or not you think the opinions over there make us assholes. like we could change your mind. flame wars come and flame wars go. like your girl Lauren says, “welcome to the internet”.

  125. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 5, 2006 at 8:01 pm |

    Mother of God, people, haven’t any of you taken Torts?

    Mother of God, haven’t you heard of a limited purpose public figure?

    Now that’s funny.

    I’m not an attorney. My legal expertise stems from typing up my ex’s law school homework 20 years ago. And even I know this is an incredibly stupid response.

    You will, I predict, have a smidge of trouble passing the bar until you learn to distinguish a charge of libel – against which a claim that the plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure is occasionally a reasonable defense – from a charge of harassment or of cyberstalking, where a person’s public figure status is utterly irrelevant.

    And I suspect you actually know all this, because none of you seem to have the nerve to post to this thread under anything that could reasonably be construed as your own names, and the posting of IP numbers was met with hissy fits.

    Which to me says either you’re liars and you know damn well such conduct is illegal and unprofessional, or you’re just too chickenshit to risk the possibility that some angry feminist JUST MIGHT subject you to the kind of harassment to which you’re perfectly willing to subject Jill, either actively or by failing to speak up to prevent such conduct.

  126. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 9:53 pm |

    in case you didn’t know, a legal education lasts more than one year. if you kick someone out they don’t finish.

    REALLY???? I was in law school for three years??? Who knew?

    There are plenty of lower-tier schools that kick out a good third of each first-year class at the end of first year.

    The school does not have to let anyone finish, and like I said, they really don’t give a flying fuck if you or the next person on the waiting list is paying that tuition, because someone will.

    Cyberstalking? Do you even know what that term means? Here’s a definition from crimelibrary.com:

    You know, at some point, you’re going to learn that you look at the definition in the statute, not some website.

    Kids today.

  127. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 5, 2006 at 9:55 pm |

    Doc Ledwis asks:

    …in case you didn’t know, a legal education lasts more than one year. if you kick someone out they don’t finish. ASU just let a convicted murderer graduate, knowing full well he had no chance of passing character and fitness. they’re a business…

    Did the “convicted murderer” make threats or incitations to violence against members of the student body, faculty or general public while enrolled in classes on-campus?
    ———
    Chris Clarke —

    What croggles the mind is that these people really have no idea just what sort of Russian Roulette they are playing with their future careers by posting this stuff at *all,* even if nobody registers a complaint with their respective schools or requests a criminal charge from the police.

    In the not-too-distant future, as companies, HR departments and background-check firms become more tech savvy, one of the questions added to the list of “what other names have you gone by” questions will be “what account names have you used on what online services, what web sites have you authored and/or contributed content to and what web logs (“blog”) have you authored and/or contribiuted to?”

    And, due to the Miracle Of The WayBack Machine, all these blogs and webpages will be archived and made searchable.

    Do they want future employers to be scanning all this stuff? This isn’t the embarrassment of bad doggeral or bad grammar under scrutiny here.

    And if you “omit” one or two account names, and the background check discovers that, it’s possible automatic termination boys and girls — it says so right on the job application — “you lie to us and we can shove your butt right out the door”

    I really don’t think that this is vary far off.

    [Took care of that repeat for you, C -- L]

  128. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 10:01 pm |

    Oh, and mr. anonymous:

    You may have noticed that my post about the ass-covering NYU might take was full of conditionals. Mights and coulds and ifs. I know very well, and you’d have picked up on this in my post if you were paying attention, that any claim has to be proven. That’s what investigations and discovery are for.

    It would be awful foolish of me to say definitely that Jill could prove her case or that the perps are definitely from NYU (although there are those on the board who have indicated that they are, and that they’re watching her). As foolish as it is for you to say for sure that she definitely doesn’t have a case.

    With time, you will understand the power and utility of CYA.

  129. zuzu
    zuzu January 5, 2006 at 10:04 pm |

    A comment so nice, you said it thrice!

  130. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 5, 2006 at 10:07 pm |

    Did the “convicted murderer” make threats or incitations to violence against members of the student body, faculty or general public while enrolled in classes on-campus?

    probably not. and of the hundreds of people who post on XO every day, only one or two people did there. you want to have a problem with them? fine. but you’re full of shit for implying that everyone else won’t pass character and fitness for not throwing a hissy fit in response, and you know it.

  131. Amanda
    Amanda January 5, 2006 at 10:38 pm |

    FYI, the guy who made the post in question is a sophomore at Texas A&M University who has never set foot in New York or anywhere in the northeast.

    Now it all becomes clear. I suppose when you go to a cow college where you butcher and serve your sex partners as lamb chops after the fact, you might be a little screwed up when it comes to the way people conduct themselves around members of the same species.

    in case you didn’t know, a legal education lasts more than one year. if you kick someone out they don’t finish. ASU just let a convicted murderer graduate, knowing full well he had no chance of passing character and fitness. they’re a business.

    Did I just sudden die and wake up in a world where top schools think a semester’s worth of tuition is worth more than their reputations?

    probably not. and of the hundreds of people who post on XO every day, only one or two people did there. you want to have a problem with them? fine. but you’re full of shit for implying that everyone else won’t pass character and fitness for not throwing a hissy fit in response, and you know it.

    So, standing around agreeing that rape is a good way to control women who dare have opinions is something that is considered admirable? Doc, your bar might be lower than the ones people in the real world have.

  132. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 5, 2006 at 10:39 pm |

    Responding to multiple individuals here:

    The law does not *care* if the attempt to induce feaf or intimidation is successful or not. It is the demonstrated *intent* to do so.

    Once again, you need to prove that there was intent to intimidate. Your word does not make it so. Any neutral third party who read :D’s posts in context would very quickly realize there was no intent.

    Ask one of your professors who is lawyer working in a big firm just what the employment prospects are for someone who has gone to the effort and expense to go through law school, taken the bar, and tghe background check for an employer turns up even an *accusation* of harrassment of any sort, and most especially an accusation of stalking and sexual harrassment.

    No offense, but your post rings of someone who attends (or has attended) a second or third tier school and does not understand how biglaw hiring works. Virtually all law students at T14 schools have their permanent jobs in hand by November of their second year of law school, almost two years before any of them take a bar exam or go through character & fitness.

    Furthermore, you highly overestimate what it takes to get fired or have an offer withdrawn — without going into specifics that can reveal my identity or school, one classmate of mine who had multiple sexual harassment complaints filed against him both in undergrad and in law school not only managed to get a job with a top firm, but did so despite having very poor grades. There are other cases where individuals with actual felony convictions not only passed character & fitness, but retained their Vault Top 50 associate positions.

    To put this in perspective, in the past few years the only high profile summer associate firings involved a summer associate at Cleary who got arrested after stripping naked and jumping into the Hudson River, a Shearman summer associate who insulted a client who was giving a presentation on affirmative action, and the infamous Tucker Max. Even the guy who wrote the Skadden (I think) about doing cocaine and hanging out with prostitutes not only didn’t get fired, but was given an offer to return.

    Of course, that’s all assuming anyone could actually track down the person in order to file a complaint with the bar or his employer.

    And what about when one these “boys” decides that Jill needs to be “taught a lesson,” and it doesn’t matter couse she hates men anyway and needs to find outr what a real good f*ck is like?”

    If that happened, it would be a crime. However, not only is that not what happened, there is absolutely no chance of that happening — no more chance than of the following happening:

    Terry Says:
    January 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
    Hey Jill – heard about this group of all-stars. If you figure out who these chumps are, let me know and I’ll be happy to help out with the ass-kicking. These guys are idiots and, worse, total assholes, and a good round of public humiliation is just what they need.

    Do you see xo posters freaking out and threatening to call the cops thinking that they’re going to get an ass-kicking? Of course not.

    Why not? To quote Lauren: welcome to the internet! Like it or not, this is how some people talk; while there are a small minority of idiots who might actually mean it when they threaten people with physical violence online, it is easy to tell whether someone is being serious or not from context. Just like it’s obvious to regular Feministe readers that Terry is not being serious, it’s obvious to regular xo readers that :D was not being serious.

    You will, I predict, have a smidge of trouble passing the bar until you learn to distinguish a charge of libel – against which a claim that the plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure is occasionally a reasonable defense – from a charge of harassment or of cyberstalking, where a person’s public figure status is utterly irrelevant.

    The poster mentioned “Torts” generally so I responded generally. I addressed the ridiculous cyberstalking/harassment point earlier, and those points transfer over to a civil case; the only other potential torts that could apply to this set of facts (defamation, the privacy torts) would involve the public figure defense.

    And I suspect you actually know all this, because none of you seem to have the nerve to post to this thread under anything that could reasonably be construed as your own names, and the posting of IP numbers was met with hissy fits.

    I was going to post with my real name here yesterday but decided against it after those IP addresses were posted. People were justifiably angry about that because Jill invited xo readers to post here, and that was the response. If Jill had disclosed that IP addresses would be posted (or stated that anonymous comments would not be accepted), those who had a problem with that would simply have not posted.

    Which to me says either you’re liars and you know damn well such conduct is illegal and unprofessional, or you’re just too chickenshit to risk the possibility that some angry feminist JUST MIGHT subject you to the kind of harassment to which you’re perfectly willing to subject Jill, either actively or by failing to speak up to prevent such conduct.

    It’s the people on xo who have been subjected to harassment (not “OMG someone who doesn’t go to my school saw the photo I voluntarily upload to facebook and made 13 posts about me saying that I’m hot on a board that gets 2.5 million posts a year,” but real harassment) who are the board’s staunchest defenders and see Jill’s accusations as completely ridiculous.

  133. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 5, 2006 at 10:47 pm |

    So, standing around agreeing that rape is a good way to control women who dare have opinions is something that is considered admirable? Doc, your bar might be lower than the ones people in the real world have.

    Do you have any how many posts are made on the xo boards? It averages between 7500-10,000 posts per day. I can guarantee you that 99.99999999999999% of xo’s readership didn’t even read that random NYU-specific thread posted in mid-August, let alone posted in it.

  134. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 5, 2006 at 11:33 pm |

    Doc Lewis:

    …. and of the hundreds of people who post on XO every day, only one or two people did [made threats] . there. you want to have a problem with them? fine. but you’re full of shit for implying that everyone else won’t pass character and fitness for not throwing a hissy fit in response, and you know it

    .

    Ok, lets try this in words with as few parts as possible.

    Just *where* did any of us say that anybody *but* those who were making threats and/or participating in “Jill sightings” or offering to “Hate-F*ck” her would be immediatly subject to failure of character and fitness?

    On the other hoof, if a future prospective employer sees any of that blatantly sexist drivel that is not *explicity* threatening, they are *still* going to likely pass on employing that individual — *because it will be too risky to have them in the workplace.*

    And you know what? The *employer* won’t give a sh*t about your thoughts that C-&-F passage is enough. That’s just one point on the CV.

    They will *not* want the chance that:

    ( a) The potential employee will cause a suit (or settlement) because of creating a “threatening or hostile environment” for the clerical/paralegal staff
    ( b) The potential employee is going to piss of another *associate* and cause a *bigger* snit because of the professional issues involved
    ( c) The potential employee is going to lose the firm billable work because they piss off a client or the client’s wife/SO/partner
    ( d) The potential employee is going to “forget to play nice” and will use overtly sexist and denigrating language to opposing counsel or to a member of the bench

    If the potential employer sees this kind of language that I’ve seen in that forum you want so much to defend,(it is *public speech* and is not protected by some unpierceable veil of privacy) they will not want to take the chance that the potential employee has actually learned to moderate their behaviour.

    Firms are real careful these days, and will continue to be so into the future, because it is perceived that even actions that an employee takes *outside of the context of the workplace* can reflect badly upon the firm, and that such *outside behaviour* can be used as collateral or contributory evidence in a suit, indicating that a firm did not exercise due diligence, well apart that the value of a firm’s public capital is determined by the public perception of the people that firm employs.

    In short — if you play little minnow games in your xoxoxo board the big fish ain’t even gonna give you a chance to play in their end of the corporate gene pool.

    N.B.: the use of the constructions “f*ck” and “sh*t” are mine, not acts of censorship by the board owners, moderators or software.

  135. fish with a bicycle
    fish with a bicycle January 5, 2006 at 11:37 pm |

    You know, at some point, you’re going to learn that you look at the definition in the statute, not some website.

    I think the statute would probably fail Papachristou; “a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm” sounds too vauge.

    Some of you fools-in-training need to look up the definition of “assault.”

    From Black’s: The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; the act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery.

    A threat of rape made remotely (such as through the internet) will, ipso facto fail the imminency requirement. I’m not saying that another tort was or was not committed, but please don’t insult people by missing a really simple legal point.

  136. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 5, 2006 at 11:40 pm |

    Craig R.: And that’s why xo posters would rather remain anonymous.

    However I think you truly overestimate law firm concerns with this stuff — for example, the owner of xo had absolutely no problem getting a job at a top Vault firm, despite Brian Leiter’s false statements showing up #1 in a Google search for his name and despite having xo on his resume.

  137. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 6, 2006 at 12:09 am |

    Craig, allow me to rebut…

    Ok, lets try this in words with as few parts as possible.

    starting off with a personal knock… always classy. you really are above our board, huh?

    Just *where* did any of us say that anybody *but* those who were making threats and/or participating in “Jill sightings” or offering to “Hate-F*ck” her would be immediatly subject to failure of character and fitness?

    read the threads. plenty of people on here have responded with the “go get em all” attitude. there was an awful lot of tough talk suggesting that we had all screwed up. but that might have been because some people mistakenly thought the board was entirely of NYU students. you understand that’s not the case.

    On the other hoof, if a future prospective employer sees any of that blatantly sexist drivel that is not *explicity* threatening, they are *still* going to likely pass on employing that individual — *because it will be too risky to have them in the workplace.*

    are you a hiring partner? an employment coordinator? do you know anything about the hiring process of law students? I was going to cut and paste this for the next few paragraphs, but I think that’s unnecessary. I appreciate your words of warning. Consider them taken under advisement, and I hope that the other posters know the holes they can dig for themselves online if they really go over the top. That being said, most of us on XO are big boys and girls and can decide who we want to hang out with after school on our own, thank you very much.

    Firms are real careful these days, and will continue to be so into the future, because it is perceived that even actions that an employee takes *outside of the context of the workplace* can reflect badly upon the firm, and that such *outside behaviour* can be used as collateral or contributory evidence in a suit, indicating that a firm did not exercise due diligence, well apart that the value of a firm’s public capital is determined by the public perception of the people that firm employs.

    no argument here on this. in theory. if you think posting on XO would amount to an offense so horrible that it’s going to cost me my job, give me some of what you’re smoking so I can lose it and feel like I earned it.

    In short — if you play little minnow games in your xoxoxo board the big fish ain’t even gonna give you a chance to play in their end of the corporate gene pool.

    in short — your point has been made. we’re all swimming just fine in the pool (and getting bites) despite your threats of doom and gloom. I’ll post on XO, and you can keep blogging. We all stay entertained.

  138. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 6, 2006 at 12:30 am |

    we’re all swimming just fine in the pool (and getting bites) despite your threats of doom and gloom.

    Just to illustrate this point: in the past year, one prominent and non-anonymous xo poster became a Rhodes Scholar. Yet another non-anonymous xo poster got a clerkship with Judge Kozinski, which with Kozinski’s feeding record will likely result in a Supreme Court clerkship. The owner of xo got published in a law review as a first year law student and had his work cited by Judge Posner.

    And these are just three of the four or so people on the entire site who are not anonymous and have posted with their real names. Lord knows what all the anonymous people have done (other than getting into the most prestigious law schools and working at the most prestigious law firms).

  139. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 6, 2006 at 12:42 am |

    Anon. xo poster:
    bear in mind that your “anonymous” status is secure only until a judge says otherwise. In fact, perceived attempts to harrass, while attempting to remain anonymous gets real dicy — it is seen as contributing to the crime.

    —–
    Doc Lewis —
    Fine, you live or drown in your own little pool.

    As for parsing the words down as small as possible for you — I was attempting to match your displayed level.

    Now, lets ask the question again — have you, or any of your “friends” on xoxoxo expressed to the “bad apples” that they are over the line and to knock it off?

    If you have, Kudos

    If you have not, you are showing tacit approval.

  140. anonymous xo poster
    anonymous xo poster January 6, 2006 at 12:59 am |

    bear in mind that your “anonymous” status is secure only until a judge says otherwise. In fact, perceived attempts to harrass, while attempting to remain anonymous gets real dicy — it is seen as contributing to the crime.

    In a life before law school, I spent three years at a job where one of my duties involved trying to identify individuals based on their IP address. You would not believe how difficult this task is, particularly when dealing with ISPs and other institutions that do not consider these issues a high priority (why would they, given that it pisses off their consumers and costs them money?). For a real life example, you might want to consider just how many RIAA lawsuits have been dismissed because of a failure to connect an IP address to an individual.

    That said, I don’t really care about my anonymity, since I (as well as 99+% of xo posters) have never said or done anything illegal or otherwise actionable.

    By the way, great job completely avoiding every single point I made in my earlier posts.

  141. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 6, 2006 at 1:05 am |

    Craig… why don’t you stop with the empty threats that aren’t real and aren’t in your power to deliver on anyway. Even Jill and Lauren think this kind of talk is over the top.

    And what don’t you understand? I’m not a moderator, I don’t operate the site, I don’t work for them, and I don’t feel the need (or ego) to inflict my personal morals and values towards every person on the Internets. If you think that makes me a horrible person, you know what? I think I’ll sleep just fine tonight.

    If you think it serves you any purpose other than the right to shake your fist and continue to type great googly moogly-isms at me, you’re wrong. It is not a crime to not put my hands on my hips and poo-poo the sarcastic comments of an undergrad in Texas (that I don’t know) regarding a New York student (that I don’t know). Sorry. You can continue to shake your fist at me and the rest of XO amongst your “friends” here and on your blog all you want. That is your right.

  142. Nancy
    Nancy January 6, 2006 at 3:10 am |

    And what don’t you understand? I’m not a moderator, I don’t operate the site, I don’t work for them,

    That brings up an interesting question – who IS the moderator? Is there one?

    AutoAccount’s web site isn’t very informative, but they do have contact info: contact@autoadmit.com. Perhaps they can provide info about their policy on threatening messages.
    (does anybody else think they have a really crappy amateurish logo?)

    AutoAccount’s domain name registrant, domainsbyproxy.com can also be contacted – they’re “committed to working with law enforcement:”
    http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/Lawenforcement.aspx#

    (if somebody else addressed this aspect of the case previously, sorry for the redundancy)

  143. PG
    PG January 6, 2006 at 12:00 pm |

    Frankly, as far as I’ve seen, those xoxohth freaks have no policies whatsoever. Brian Leiter sums up the situation in that place nicely. And then there’s filthy threads like this.

    Those boards are for the bottom-feeders of the world: the types who work their asses off for the privilege of getting to work for the republican judiciary committee in aid of their effort to put more white males on the federal bench. Fuck ‘em.

  144. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 6, 2006 at 3:39 pm |

    Doc Lewis:

    Craig… why don’t you stop with the empty threats that aren’t real and aren’t in your power to deliver on anyway. Even Jill and Lauren think this kind of talk is over the top.

    And what don’t you understand? I’m not a moderator, I don’t operate the site, I don’t work for them, and I don’t feel the need (or ego) to inflict my personal morals and values towards every person on the Internets. If you think that makes me a horrible person, you know what? I think I’ll sleep just fine tonight.

    Would you care to quote just where I have made any threats to you or your fellows, empty or otherwise?

    Are you poster on that site?

    Are you member of that “community?”

    Do you see your “community’s” inherent value being enhanced by tolerating or giving tacit approval of the language and threats that were posted?

    All of those are reasons where I would imagine you would want to have these threats and this language changed.

    If you are not comfortable with those languages and threats, and you don’t feel comfortable “inflicting your personal morals and values” why are you there at all?

    And it seems that you *are* perfectly happy with those who are using the offensive language and making the threats imposing *thwie* moews and actions on the “internets.”

    Further, you are, of your own free will, defending their actions by giving tacit approval, and also showing, by your continued association, showing that you *want* to associate with them.

    —–
    as an aside —
    Somebody upthread tried to claim that a failure of “immediacy” would fail the threat for “assault.”

    First, remember that harrassment, which creates a “hostile environment” is actionable, even though no immediate physical threat is found, and harrassment is a form of assault. Also, the creation of the “hostile environment” itself is the harm.

    ————–

    As a second aside —
    in re data security — all an IP address gives is the address. Howvever, the administrative remedies available are to find the users, and by following the paper trail of who owns what account you find the person who owns that account.

  145. Mr. Bruce
    Mr. Bruce January 6, 2006 at 4:45 pm |

    Hey Jill–

    I’m a new reader over at Vox Popoli and I followed a link from there to here. Although I left a lengthy comment there, all I want to say here is that I hope you notify the appropriate authorities, if you have not done so already.

    Good luck!

  146. JJE
    JJE January 6, 2006 at 4:47 pm |

    In a life before law school, I spent three years at a job where one of my duties involved trying to identify individuals based on their IP address. You would not believe how difficult this task is, particularly when dealing with ISPs and other institutions that do not consider these issues a high priority (why would they, given that it pisses off their consumers and costs them money?).

    Query what law school this anonymous person attends wherein s/he remains ignorant of the obscure and esoteric procedural device known as a “subpoena.” I’d imagine sanctions for non-compliance with a court order might induce an ISP to rethink its decision not to make “these issues a high priority.”

  147. doc lewis
    doc lewis January 6, 2006 at 8:04 pm |

    OK big guy, one more time (with feeling)

    Would you care to quote just where I have made any threats to you or your fellows, empty or otherwise?

    your constant talking about how screwed we’re all gonna be *should* someone decide to bring assault or harassment charges, or if someone *should* happen to come across our association with a terrible horrible no good very bad website? you don’t think you implied anything? ok, whatever.

    Are you poster on that site?

    Are you member of that “community?”

    Do you see your “community’s” inherent value being enhanced by tolerating or giving tacit approval of the language and threats that were posted?

    I think we’ve already been over this. My “community’s” value is enhanced by allowing people to speak their mind. We are big boys and girls who can make their own decisions as to what we want to post on the internets (as well as the consequences to follow). If all people posted on XO were things like D posted, I wouldn’t be there. If you don’t like it as it exists, then stick to your own “community”.

    All of those are reasons where I would imagine you would want to have these threats and this language changed.

    DING! Wrong again. If you want to impose you morals and values over people, edit your own blog. Just like I don’t shove my opinions down people’s throats at a party, I don’t feel the need to demand anything on the internet. In real life, I’d mingle and find someone else to talk to. On XO, I talk and associate with certain people. D and I are not exactly buddies.

    If you are not comfortable with those languages and threats, and you don’t feel comfortable “inflicting your personal morals and values” why are you there at all?

    I’m there because it’s a place for law students to talk. I don’t impose my personal values/morals because, as I said above, I’m not that much of a self important blowhard.

    Further, you are, of your own free will, defending their actions by giving tacit approval, and also showing, by your continued association, showing that you *want* to associate with them.

    Tacit approval? I *want* to “associate” with them? What are you implying if you aren’t trying to threaten me that “something bad” could happen to me? Or are you really deep down concerned with my reputation? You’ve already made it clear that later in life the internet search devils might find that I posted on a site where someone else said something iffy. Noted. Like I said, I’ll sleep fine tonight. I think at this point you just are shouting to hear your own voice. I got your point. You should at least have an idea of what mine is. This board should move on. So here’s what I’m going to do.

    1. I’m going out because it’s Friday night.

    2. You can post a response to this if you want. You seem determined to have the last word. And I like your posts because they have big words in it.

    3. This board has seen plenty of our give and take at this point. The view of most people on XO has been made clear, and I don’t want to troll. If you really want to continue our discussion, let me know and we can take it to email. If not, best of luck to you in life.

    -Doc

  148. Pretty Lady
    Pretty Lady January 6, 2006 at 8:35 pm |

    Sweetie, there there, I know it hurts. But do you not realize that nearly every human sees the world through the filter of his or her own experience? That the ‘fat and ugly’ has no reality but in the mind of the epithet-hurler? That, in short, it is always about them, not about you? If you sue them, therefore, you are merely reinforcing their twisted reality, instead of loftily failing to understand it.

    Just think, if I were to get my knickers in a twist every time some ape-brained yahoo called me a whore, my brow would become furrowed in no time, and there would go my livelihood!

  149. piny
    piny January 6, 2006 at 8:53 pm |

    Tacit approval? I *want* to “associate” with them? What are you implying if you aren’t trying to threaten me that “something bad” could happen to me? Or are you really deep down concerned with my reputation?

    Since you’re gone, I suppose it’s not fair, but hey: I don’t care.

    He’s “implying,” or, rather, straight-out saying, that you’re responsible, obligated, culpable. That you should complain, and that it isn’t “imposing” anything on anyone to do so–a distinction you go to great pains to make when you talk about how Jill should just ignore and avoid the rape comments. Since you aren’t complaining, you’re part of the problem: you’re helping to create an environment where people are not only free to say horrible things about women, but able to do so without encountering any criticism.

    In other words, you’re not the guy who catcalls a woman on the subway, you’re just the jerk who pretends that his WSJ has suddenly turned into a Cone of Silence. Just as a judiciously inserted, “Hey, you shouldn’t talk to her like that,” wouldn’t amount to a violation of free speech in that situation, it doesn’t amount to an imposition in this one. And just as that guy is associating with a sexist asshole–demonstrating neutrality towards the elephant who is standing on the mouse’s tail–so are you. Your silence maintains a misogynist’s comfort, and makes it not merely possible but easy for him to say horrible things about women that trivialize rape and sexual violence.

  150. Craig R.
    Craig R. January 6, 2006 at 9:19 pm |

    piny:

    In other words, you’re not the guy who catcalls a woman on the subway, you’re just the jerk who pretends that his WSJ has suddenly turned into a Cone of Silence. Just as a judiciously inserted, “Hey, you shouldn’t talk to her like that,” wouldn’t amount to a violation of free speech in that situation, it doesn’t amount to an imposition in this one. And just as that guy is associating with a sexist asshole–demonstrating neutrality towards the elephant who is standing on the mouse’s tail–so are you. Your silence maintains a misogynist’s comfort, and makes it not merely possible but easy for him to say horrible things about women that trivialize rape and sexual violence.

    Thank you. I was trying to say that, and that the quality of life is improved for all involved if we alltry at least to realize we are all stakeholders.

    It appears I was not getting through.

    There is an old say that “dying is easy, comedy is hard.”

    This stuff is lot worse than comedy.

  151. zuzu
    zuzu January 6, 2006 at 9:37 pm |

    your constant talking about how screwed we’re all gonna be *should* someone decide to bring assault or harassment charges, or if someone *should* happen to come across our association with a terrible horrible no good very bad website? you don’t think you implied anything? ok, whatever.

    It’s time you learned the difference between a warning and a threat.

    Again, look for the conditionals: “should” vs. “will” or “when.”

    Let me tell you a story of what happens when sexual/racial harassers get caught. I’m sure you’re aware of Baker & McKenzie, one of the biggest firms in the world. A dozen years ago or so, they were banned from recruiting on the top law schools’ campuses because of racist and sexist comments some of their partners had made while recruiting on campus.

    You probably haven’t worked in the real world; and summer associateships don’t count as the real world. You’ll learn.

  152. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager January 7, 2006 at 6:20 am |

    In a life before law school, I spent three years at a job where one of my duties involved trying to identify individuals based on their IP address. You would not believe how difficult this task is, particularly when dealing with ISPs and other institutions that do not consider these issues a high priority (why would they, given that it pisses off their consumers and costs them money?). For a real life example, you might want to consider just how many RIAA lawsuits have been dismissed because of a failure to connect an IP address to an individual.

    Yes, because 9/11 didn’t change that at all. It’s very easy these days to identify individuals, since the ISPs actively work together with law enforcements, and are reqiured to keep records.

  153. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke January 7, 2006 at 2:12 pm |

    doc lewis says:

    I’m there because it’s a place for law students to talk. I don’t impose my personal values/morals because, as I said above, I’m not that much of a self important blowhard.

    … without his brain exploding from the irony, odd given that he’s saying the above on a blog where he’s spent the last three days standing up for his personal value of not standing up for his personal values.

    My “community’s” value is enhanced by allowing people to speak their mind.

    Shorter doc lewis: rape threats enhance my life, so screw you.

  154. Auguste
    Auguste January 7, 2006 at 4:47 pm |

    Peter Brimelow, editor of Vdare.com, ladies and gentlemen:

    I know I’m supposed to feel guilty about this, but (possibly because I’m an unassimilated immigrant) I don’t. Instead, I wonder what the four white victims of the December 2000 Wichita Massacre looked like…

    VDARE.COM does not, as it happens, advocate lynching. But it cannot be denied that Till was lynched for what would now be called the sexual harassment of a white woman. And elementary math suggests that, in the almost five decades since his death, up to 1.5 million white women may have been raped by blacks. Perhaps 50,000 whites may have been killed.

    VDare is racist. Suggestions otherwise are simply ridiculous.

    (sorry for the blogwhore)

  155. Auguste
    Auguste January 7, 2006 at 4:48 pm |

    Sorry, in case it wasn’t clear, Brimelow was referring to Emmitt Till.

  156. piny
    piny January 7, 2006 at 5:08 pm |

    He was a fourteen-year-old boy! Who was tortured to death! Over a period of several hours!

    That evil motherfucker. I hope he never finds out what it’s like to have to come identify your son’s body after his face has been blown off.

  157. zuzu
    zuzu January 8, 2006 at 12:51 pm |

    So it’s appropriate for a black boy to be killed because he “sexually harassed” a white woman by whistling at her, but when white guys threaten rape, it’s all in the woman’s head?

    Precious.

  158. Brian
    Brian January 9, 2006 at 2:43 pm |

    “bear in mind that your “anonymous” status is secure only until a judge says otherwise. In fact, perceived attempts to harrass, while attempting to remain anonymous gets real dicy — it is seen as contributing to the crime.”

    Not really. With a wireless enabled laptop, you can pull into the parking lot of a Starbuck’s, Panera, most hotels etc., and connect anonymously to their unsecured wireless network 24/7, and post anonymously to your heart’s content.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.