Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

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

616 Responses

  1. BabyPop
    BabyPop March 7, 2007 at 3:03 pm |

    What creeplords!

  2. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub March 7, 2007 at 3:11 pm |

    Honestly. Why have these assholes been able to stay in law school? I would NOT want to hire a lawyer who encouraged a bunch of fellow assberets to stalk and harass someone. And if I was the dean, I’d figure it wouldn’t make the law school look particularly good.

    As for Ann Althouse, she’s a sniveling idiot who should try prying her head out of her ass.

  3. Roy
    Roy March 7, 2007 at 3:16 pm |

    Wow.

    This reminds me of craigslist, and the “missed connections” section.

    I got hooked on reading the missed connections because some of the stories are really sweet, and some are really funny. A few months back, though, they took a decidedly creepy turn, and post after post after post started getting put up about a woman working at a local restaurant. They were talking about what she would be like in bed, and encouraging each other to take pictures of her. Whenever someone discouraged the comments or pointed out how creepy/stalkerish/disgusting the comments were getting, their comment would get flagged and removed. The poor girl they were harassing eventually quit her job. She said that her boyfriend and family were even getting harassed by people.

    To say the least, it’s pretty fucked up.

  4. gr
    gr March 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    If you took those pictures, they are probably your copyright. Under the DMCA, you may have rights to force their ISP to take them down. I’m sure someone at your law school could help. I’m a privacy lawyer interested in the issue generally. Email me if you want a follow up.

  5. Span
    Span March 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    This whole thing horrifies me Jill. Partly because I just do not understand the mentality of people who would do things like this. Sadly I do know some men who act this way, but I just don’t get it, why can’t they see how threatening and plain unfair their behaviour is? How can we change people who seem to be this hard-wired in their prejudices?

  6. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm | *

    There’s an obsession with “prestige,” and commenters regularly disparage lower-tier schools, and use the term “TTT” to denote anything they consider low-prestige.

    What kills me is this whole “prestige” obsession when they had to stretch the Top 10 to the “T14″ so the asswipes at the school ranked at #14 could participate and feel special.

    What’s even more insidious about this is the insistence on pseudonymity for the guys on the board, while they use the real names of the women they’re lying about and threatening.

  7. Rhiannon
    Rhiannon March 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm |

    Yep, I wouldn’t hire those guys either, for fear of all the sexual harrassment law suits that would be brought against my firm.

  8. Roy
    Roy March 7, 2007 at 3:33 pm |

    Yep, I wouldn’t hire those guys either, for fear of all the sexual harrassment law suits that would be brought against my firm.

    And that’s one of the (many) fucked up aspects. These guys do something that has the potential to ruin a woman’s ability to get hired by using her real name and posting vile things about her, but they don’t risk their own employment, since they only post using alts and pseudonyms.

  9. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 7, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    On the one hand, this whole thing is sickening and infuriating. Especially that fact that people are threatening rape on these boards and not instantly being expelled from universities.

    On the other hand, and after purging myself with a few sets of push ups and Bulgarian squats (and “the plank”), I suppose it’s just par for the course. Lawyers are scum who can’t experience any pleasure that doesn’t center on degrading someone else? Althouse is a sexist sack of shit who gets off on the humiliation of young women? The MSM mindlessly parrots the talking points of mouthbreathing filth because that’s apparently really the best these imbecile jackals can do? Corporate universities breed and profit from retrograde sociopathy rather than fight it? Nothing is new under the sun, except maybe Apple’s taser/vibrator/mini tv/cell phone/car battery/toaster oven.

    “When man has destroyed what he thinks he owns, I hope no living thing cries over his bones…”

  10. Frumious B
    Frumious B March 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm |

    If you all sue, I hope someone raw dogs it right in your ass and kicks you out of their god damn house.

    Charming. Note to self: do not date lawyers.

  11. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 3:42 pm | *

    Lawyers are scum who can’t experience any pleasure that doesn’t center on degrading someone else?

    Hey!

  12. human
    human March 7, 2007 at 3:44 pm |

    I thought about you, Jill, when I read this article. Did the reporter contact you?

    Really creepy and disgusting stuff. Ugh.

  13. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 7, 2007 at 3:55 pm |

    Okay, okay, I know not all lawyers are like this. Some of them content themselves with just hating children and pilots. But there’s a reason there are all those jokes about wasted cement and blind snakes and such.

  14. norbizness
    norbizness March 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    Let’s be statistically fair; only 58% of my pleasure is in the form of other-degradation.

    There may be a function on Flickr, however, that can cut down on some shit; you put the pic behind an “only friends and family may see this” mini-firewall. With the amount of pics you have, though, this could be no small chore. All of the other weird suggestions made by the toilet-administrators and slut-shaming, know-nothing Midwestern professors are, of course, complete garbage.

  15. raging red
    raging red March 7, 2007 at 4:04 pm |

    Ann Althouse needs to get a clue. A woman says she fears going to the gym because anonymous creeps on the internet who posted her photo and made sexually explicit comments about her are now encouraging people to essentially stalk her at the gym, and Althouse’s response is: “Too beautiful to appear in public?” Idiot.

    So would she be more sympathetic if instead of posting photos of women they think are hot, these guys did the opposite — posted photos of women they think are ugly so they could call them dogs and lardasses and unfuckable bitches and blah blah blah and then encouraged people to get camera phone shots of their fat asses?

    I didn’t think Althouse could surprise me with her insensitivity and stupidity any more than she has already, but I guess I was wrong. Honestly, she doesn’t get why women would be upset about this? I generally don’t approve of feminist policing, but jesus, how can she possibly call herself a feminist when she so clearly doesn’t give a shit about women? (See also, Boobgate.)

  16. Betsy
    Betsy March 7, 2007 at 4:13 pm |

    Wow. Excuse me while I vomit. It reminds me of what my wonderful, very feminist boyfriend told me once about locker rooms and other all-male, adolescent environments – “I don’t think women understand how bad some of the things men say in these environments are.” Or in Twisty’s words, we have no idea how much men hate us. (I maintain hope, though, that it’s not the majority of men – I really hope against hope that most would find this horrifying and understand how threatening it is.)
    What blows my mind is the utter transparency of taking the site down as soon as a male, high-status lawyer is identified, but ruthlessly castigating any woman who objects to being identified and used without her permission for the fun and titillation of the peanut-brained pencil-dicks who use the site. What, you’re supposed to get a gold star for that? I surely don’t see why. You didn’t do it in response to any internal decency, respect, or concern for the safety of the women. How could Althouse possibly defend this?!

  17. micheyd
    micheyd March 7, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    I can’t believe he used the term “gold star” without apparent irony. It could have only gotten better if he said he wanted a cookie.

  18. Matt Browner-Hamlin
    Matt Browner-Hamlin March 7, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    I will never cease to be amazed at the extent to which having a cock will entitle people to think they can be a cock.

  19. Scott Lemieux
    Scott Lemieux March 7, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    Please, are you telling me that a prominent lawyer would be so irrational as to, say, draw broad inferences about a stranger’s character based on the fact that she wore a high-cut Ann Taylor sweater to a meeting with a politician? That’s crazy.

  20. mustelid
    mustelid March 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm |

    This post really freaked me out. Jill, I’m so sorry you went through this.

  21. raging red
    raging red March 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm |

    Okay, I know this post isn’t about Ann Althouse, but damn, she is really depraved (and incredibly self-absorbed). She said she was sympathetic to the woman in the article who said someone was pretending to be her on the message board:

    I am sympathetic to the woman who had someone impersonate her by name in a chat. There is a popular blog where that is done to me in the comments and openly encouraged. As I noted here, the blogger in question flatly refused to do anything about it.)

    And what was the sentence directly before the one that made Althouse feel sympathetic?

    The chats sometimes include photos taken from women’s Facebook pages, and in the Yale student’s case, one person threatened to sexually violate her.

    Threatened sexual assault? Get over it. Impersonating you online? Outrageous!

  22. Hawise
    Hawise March 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm |

    What a pair of sadsacks those two are, so a big hi out there to Anthony Ciolli and Jarrett Cohen for once again proving that every gene pool needs to be cleaned on a regular basis or you might catch a disease.

  23. Caro
    Caro March 7, 2007 at 4:25 pm |

    That’s just stupid, lame and disrespectful. It always upsets me (though it doesn’t surprise me) when such chauvinist assholes go to prestigious universities and professional schools. Sexism is dead, my ass! It sexism exists this way among the most elite intellectuals of American society (people who certainly can’t claim “ignorance” on whether or not something is offensive or disrespectful), where doesn’t it exist?

  24. Ugly in Pink
    Ugly in Pink March 7, 2007 at 4:28 pm |

    A large portion of the fun of being a lawyer is going to come from beating assholes like these in court. God I can’t wait.

  25. evil fizz
    evil fizz March 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm | *

    How fucking charming.

    So would she be more sympathetic if instead of posting photos of women they think are hot, these guys did the opposite — posted photos of women they think are ugly so they could call them dogs and lardasses and unfuckable bitches and blah blah blah and then encouraged people to get camera phone shots of their fat asses?

    Oh, this site exists. I ran across it when I was an undergrad. It’s called Ivy Uglies or something similar. It was horrifying in ways that I can’t describe.

  26. gr
    gr March 7, 2007 at 4:30 pm |

    Oops. I see you have been emailing concerning your rights to the images. Never mind. I’m curious what image host they moved to. Something offshore?

  27. Dan S.
    Dan S. March 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    Ciolli posts under the handles Great Teacher Onizuka

    What a surprise.

    Apple’s taser/vibrator/mini tv/cell phone/car battery/toaster oven

    You do have to be very careful with the setting switch . . .

    And, Christ, what assholes.

  28. Nakanja
    Nakanja March 7, 2007 at 4:35 pm |

    I’m so tired of this “they invite attention by having stuff online” attitude. Do they really think that gives them a free pass or something? Just because the internet makes it easier to be an odious twerp doesn’t make one any less of an odious twerp for taking the opportunity.

    The “First Amendment ideals” of the site owners don’t impress me either. The First Amendment doesn’t require them to host this crap and make it visible to the whole world, and they wouldn’t be letting down the First Amendment in any way by shouting “I am surrounded by assholes and I can’t stand reading my own site anymore” and flushing the whole thing. The fact that they haven’t says more about them than their “ideals” do. It’s like having some friend following you around saying outrageous things all the time, and instead of ever calling them on it, just say “Isn’t the marketplace of ideas grand?”.

  29. evil fizz
    evil fizz March 7, 2007 at 4:37 pm | *

    P.S. Okay, I am laughing hysterically that Althouse has this post tagged as anti-Althousiana.

    It sounds like a misspelled hatred of the Louisiana Purchase or something.

  30. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 4:37 pm | *

    The “First Amendment ideals”

    Oh, God, I missed that one. Did they not take Con Law?

  31. eve
    eve March 7, 2007 at 4:38 pm |

    Is it possible to take legal action against them?

  32. Ugly in Pink
    Ugly in Pink March 7, 2007 at 4:41 pm |

    I just did a project on this, and NY has some fairly broad invasion of privacy laws. (for civil suit, not criminal) It might be worth looking into.

  33. ellenbrenna
    ellenbrenna March 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm |

    Those high performing women are the competition for jobs. In a basically sexist society they are going to go after you and the rest of them using any weapon they have. They are trying to avoid having to compete academically and professionally by tearing you down.

  34. raging red
    raging red March 7, 2007 at 4:46 pm |

    Oh, God, I missed that one. Did they not take Con Law?

    Heh, even worse: AA says “I’m coming down on the side of free speech on this, and that’s one more thing she’s outraged about.” And she teaches Con Law.

  35. lilcollegegirl
    lilcollegegirl March 7, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    This is really scary and I’m sorry it happened to you.

  36. Grand Moff Texan
    Grand Moff Texan March 7, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    WTF is it about law school students? Why are so many of their personalities in suspended animation?

    If I taught at NYU, I’d assume they needed more homework.
    .

  37. res ipsa loquitur
    res ipsa loquitur March 7, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    …making comments about raping and hate-fucking me…

    Every once in a while I come across an expression that makes me realize that I am middle-aged and “hate-fucking” is one of them. I don’t know what it means (although it sounds synonymous with “raping”), and truly I don’t want to know; but the sheer ugliness of it goes beyond “online disinhibition effect.” These guys truly loathe women.

    And Ann BanAlthouse just misses the point (yet again).

    I’m sorry you have to deal with this.

  38. BStu
    BStu March 7, 2007 at 5:00 pm |

    Sure they are breaking the law by violating your intellectual property rights. Sure they are encouraging harrassment and an invasion of privacy. Sure they are objectifying you and engaging in male entitlement. But they think you’re cute, so that must make it all okay. Why, didn’t you know that if a boy thinks your fuckable, anything they do in response has to be a compliment. Golly, its like you think women are people, too.

  39. Lindsay
    Lindsay March 7, 2007 at 5:03 pm |

    1. I almost threw up when I got to the end and it suddenly dawned on me that one day very soon these people will all be lawyers. That is unbelievably fucking frightening.

    2. So would she be more sympathetic if instead of posting photos of women they think are hot, these guys did the opposite — posted photos of women they think are ugly so they could call them dogs and lardasses and unfuckable bitches and blah blah blah and then encouraged people to get camera phone shots of their fat asses?

    Then she’d just say they were desperately insecure. Or else they should just feel lucky anyone was paying attention to them at all.

    3. On a more self-indulgent note, it kind of pisses me off that first-tier schools passed on me so they could take shites like these.

    This stuff is sickening…but thank you for writing about it, even at the risk of opening yourself to further attacks. It’s important that people know that this stuff happens.

  40. aeroman
    aeroman March 7, 2007 at 5:03 pm |

    I don’t get what the problem is. The First Amendment says that no one has any moral responsibility for anything they say. It’s in the text!

    AutoAdmit is a pure distillation of everthing horrible about law students. Jill, you and I actually talked about this super briefly last week, and I had no idea so many people from Yale were involved. It seems like such a polite little community most of the time. Thank god I went anonymous.

  41. Kristina
    Kristina March 7, 2007 at 5:04 pm |

    So I stayed home today because I had a headache, which after reading this, is approaching migraine territory.
    While I didn’t know about this site exactly, I had a sneaking suspicion that crap like this happens. If you want to see some really fun harassment, there is a forum where policemen hang out, and they’ll out anyone who pisses them off. To other policemen. Not that they’re threatening anyone, of course (I’d roll my eyes, but it hurts too much right now).

    What shocks me the most is the idea someone can anonymously discuss hate-fucking a woman, and the woman isn’t hired by an employer. “Sorry, Sally, but it looks like there’s an online community of people who want to rape you. We just don’t think that type of lawyer would fit in here at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt.”
    It makes me wonder if I really want to go to law school.

  42. Kristina
    Kristina March 7, 2007 at 5:07 pm |

    Also, I can’t begin to imagine what this must feel like, but you have my deepest sympathies. I’m sorry to hear that you’re going through this. How frustrating it must be to feel as though you don’t have much recourse.

  43. Thomas
    Thomas March 7, 2007 at 5:09 pm |

    Anthony Ciolli and Jarrett Cohen.

    Noted for future reference.

  44. L'Ombre de l'Olivier
    L'Ombre de l'Olivier March 7, 2007 at 5:12 pm |

    Asymmetrical Anonymity

    Jill at Feministe and Makijthise draw attention to an article in the WaPo about how the internet has allowed celebrity gossip to spread to cover ordinary people. Well OK that isn’t quite what it is saying but that is the basic fact. The article repor…

  45. anon1L
    anon1L March 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm |

    To be fair, the contest was not run by autoadmit. It was run by one poster who is not well liked on the board. Many posters requested he take down the pictures but he refused. I am sorry you had to go through all of this, and the person who posted your pictures without permission was wrong. But blaming a website that allows people to share their opinions, as disgusting as they may be, isnt the best response. The person to blame for this contest is anonymous but a xoxo poster, who dislikes the guy almost as much as you do, created this site with some of his information http://paulie.walnutsack.googlepages.com/home2 . He is who you should blame.

  46. ako
    ako March 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm |

    The two men said that some of the women who complain of being ridiculed on AutoAdmit invite attention by, for example, posting their photographs on other social networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace.

    Nice to know the “But she was asking for it!” defense still has a few adherents.

    And this makes me feel so much better about not getting into their “Top 14″ (seriously, why is fourteen impressive, but fifteen not?) law schools. I think the egomaniacs concentrate at the top

  47. yoyoyo
    yoyoyo March 7, 2007 at 5:15 pm |

    I agree with the sentiments about that discussion board. A sad testament to the intelligence of your average law school student. That being said, I think it’s pretty unlikely that this woman was nixed because of comments on a trashy board like that. Speaking from personal experience, I have interviewed dozens of candidates, and never have I googled one. Even if I had, I don’t see how that could be taken into account in the standard BigLaw interview process.

    I would guess this woman had some major flaw. It may have even been an overdefensiveness related to the fact that she had such comments out there written about her.

    In short, it’s frakked up that the people commenting on this website exist. But I would deem it highly unlikely that their comments were the direct cause of her not receiving callbacks. My 2 cents.

  48. buck70
    buck70 March 7, 2007 at 5:17 pm |

    I am truly sorry that you have had to deal with such lame ass shit heads. Truly the guys that run this site give the rest of us a bad name. I wish you didn’t have to deal with this. I wish all women didn’t have to pretty much deal with this on a daily basis.

    Sometimes not only am I ashamed to be human, but a male at that.

  49. Klein's Tiny Left Nut
    Klein's Tiny Left Nut March 7, 2007 at 5:18 pm |

    God, these guys are huge assholes.

    But seriously not all lawyers and not all men think like this.

    Some of us became lawyers to do good believe it or not.

    And a lot of men genuinely like and appreciate women — as lovers, friends, colleagues, and peers.

  50. anonymous
    anonymous March 7, 2007 at 5:19 pm |

    The new NYS AG has a very aggressive civil rights department–it might be worth reaching out to them, and including the link to the WaPo article so they know this is high-profile.

  51. paul
    paul March 7, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    I haven’t read through all the replies, but the quick and easy solution is to make all your Flickr pictures accessible only to people you know. You don’t have to make it all available to everyone.

    That said, my brief experience working in a law school proved the “90% of anything is crap” rule. The whole experience seems like a vicious trap. To get through it, you need a lot of money, which suggests large loans for most of us, which means a significant debt and drives people away from public service law (which doesn’t pay all that well) to big corporate law (which does). And the educational process, by all accounts, is soul-sucking like nothing else. I had a prof who took a law degree and left the bar describe law as no better than cleaning toilets.

  52. Christina
    Christina March 7, 2007 at 5:33 pm |

    I want to have a t-shirt made that says “if I’m a bitch, its because you’re an asshole.”

  53. Thomas
    Thomas March 7, 2007 at 5:34 pm |

    The PaulieWalnutsack info may be untrue. MWE has no Princeton/Fordham alum in the WDC office on its website. Of course, maybe he is contract.

    Any STB folks recognize the asshole?

  54. Thomas
    Thomas March 7, 2007 at 5:34 pm |

    The PaulieWalnutsack info may be untrue. MWE has no Princeton/Fordham alum in the WDC office on its website. Of course, maybe he is contract.

    Any STB folks recognize the asshole?

  55. bmc90
    bmc90 March 7, 2007 at 5:34 pm |

    How would the guys running this little contest like it if a bunch of gay men set up a site about THEM and started following them into locker rooms at the gym with CAMERA PHONES and talking about all the things they would like to do to them with and without lube? They would be running down to the station filing police reports for terroristic threatening and organizing gangs with baseball bats to hunt down the people running the site. James Dobson would pay Sullivan and Cromwell to pursue and injunction and defamation damages against the site operators, and I assure you the MSM would forget the First Amendment exists. Anyone disagree?

  56. blucas!
    blucas! March 7, 2007 at 5:36 pm |

    That’s some messed up shit right there. You’d expect something nerdier from a law school message board. I guess it just goes to show you how law schools are increasingly the realm of frat boys who couldn’t figure out what else to do after graduation.

  57. Law Student
    Law Student March 7, 2007 at 5:37 pm |

    All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.

    Sure, some lawyers and law students are scum. Some lawyers were instrumental in things like the civil rights movement (yes, even some white male lawyers!). Some women are scum. Some women are great.

  58. TomCody
    TomCody March 7, 2007 at 5:40 pm |

    Jill,

    I am truly sorry this is happening to you and to these women. It takes a true coward to post anomalously public information about other people and then bitch when their names may be made public (as was stated in the article).

    The awesome thing to do would be to connect the IP addresses to names and then turn the tables by finding photos of these asshats and making their comments public (like publishing it in the school paper) right along side their names and/or photos. Show the students and administration what kind of gentlemen are in their midst.

    *sigh* if only.

  59. Atrios
    Atrios March 7, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    “All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.”

    oh my.

  60. eve
    eve March 7, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    aha. That’s right law student, because lawywers are such an oppressed group and they have always been harrassed by more powerful people, even lynched or raped.
    Why don’t you go fuck yourself little boy?

  61. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 7, 2007 at 5:43 pm |

    Some women are scum. Some women are great.

    I’ll be sure to take that assessment of the Woman career choice into account when I’m making up my mind whether to apply to Woman School.

  62. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil March 7, 2007 at 5:43 pm |

    Well, nice to see that Althouse’s fans are circling the wagons and offering Jill “fatherly” advice.

    Consider this a lesson.

    They also sagely note that Jill’s only giving the site more attention by talking about the issue.

    Yes, because she should suffer in silence. Sit there demurely and smile while people write nasty, spiteful, vile comments about physically assaulting her. Sigh and shrug her shoulders and say “oh, well, boys will be boys.”

    Would daddy dearest be giving the same advice if it were his son being attacked? Yeah, I thought not.

  63. julia
    julia March 7, 2007 at 5:44 pm |

    I think maybe I’m confused. This is the same Ann Althouse who started a raging blog war over a woman wearing a sweater that fit in an online picture because by having a picture posted in which she was wearing a sweater that fit she was sexualizing her image and causing herself not to be taken seriously to the point where Ann Althouse and her commenters were totally justified in making blowjob jokes?

    She can’t figure out what the problem is with having bathing suit pictures explicitly linked to your professional career in an online contest?

    I wonder how her law students deal with her working backwards from the results she prefers approach. Must make case law awfully complicated.

  64. BroD
    BroD March 7, 2007 at 5:44 pm |

    Wow! Since when do 4th graders get admitted to law school?

  65. Mike Nilsen
    Mike Nilsen March 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm |

    These AutoAdmit creeps are the maggoty larvae proto-lawyers that will develop into the scum-suckers and bottom-feeders that give the lawyering profession its legendary bad rep.

  66. Dave in NYC
    Dave in NYC March 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm |

    Many gyms prohibit you from taking video/photos there without permission for precisely this reason. Anyone who posts a picture taken at the gym on this site could have their membership revoked.

  67. micheyd
    micheyd March 7, 2007 at 5:53 pm |

    Seems like Althouse got the super-secret feminist agenda & manifesto on backwards day, because all she ever does is blame the victim and spew republican talking points on, well, everything.

  68. zsa
    zsa March 7, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    Much as the term “miserable failure” (until google blocked it) pointed to the worst president ever, it’s not impossible for the names “Anthony Ciolli” and “Jarrett Cohen” to link to the most obectionable of their comments.

    These clowns will be looking for jobs one day.

  69. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm | *

    One caveat about that PaulieWalnuts site: it’s not his own page, but the page of someone looking to out him.

    All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.

    Oh, honey. You don’t know what you’re in for.

  70. Todd and in Charge
    Todd and in Charge March 7, 2007 at 5:58 pm |

    Just awful. I run a litigation boutique in Miami and you or other affected law students are more than welcome to clerk here this summer.

  71. dckatiebug
    dckatiebug March 7, 2007 at 6:04 pm |

    I’m pretty sure that the most recent re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act made it illegal to harass someone in almost precisely the way that this contest did the women involved. Clearly you can’t prosecute someone ex post facto, but should the harassment continue, there may be an avenue for legal recourse.

  72. bean
    bean March 7, 2007 at 6:04 pm |

    JIll – so sorry to hear this has flared up. Again. What assholes.

    And Ann Althouse’s reality is, shall we say, twisted?

    Anyway, should you need some badass blogger backup in the hals of VH, I’m your woman. Though in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that my coldstone stares and my verbal barbs are the scariest weapon I’ve got.

  73. Stillonmt
    Stillonmt March 7, 2007 at 6:06 pm |

    A client of mine once said that 99% of all lawyers make the rest look bad. This probably applies to law students as well. An awful lot of lawyers to be, especially at the “top tiers”, are in it for the power or prestige. This power-trip attitude crosses over into their personal lives. Demeaning women or minorities makes them feel superior and powerful.

  74. Most Despised Professional Class  at  Three Bulls!

    [...] ;Republican Operative” is off the table, and elitist pundit too, we’ll go with “racist frat boy law student.” Seriously, I have b [...]

  75. Mark S.
    Mark S. March 7, 2007 at 6:08 pm |

    All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.

    You’re going to make a hell of a lawyer one day, son.

  76. Anon
    Anon March 7, 2007 at 6:18 pm |

    Came here from Eschaton and can’t help but wonder if it’s a “few/some bad apples” situation at that website.

    I’d be interested to see the ratio of offensive to non-offensive posts tehre, if the information is available.

  77. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm |

    Some lawyers were instrumental in things like the civil rights movement (yes, even some white male lawyers!).

    Sorry, Jack. I read The Official Lefty’s Guide to the History of these United States by Ward Churchill, and that just ain’t true.

    On the other hand–what do you call a lawyer encased in cement?

    A waste of good cement! Because what do you call a hundred lawyers floating face down in a river? A good start!!

    Okay, that’s it, I promise. And zuzu, you know your awesomeness would redeem any other profession. As it is, our lawyer jokes remain satisfying (did ya hear the one about the blind rabbit and the blind snake?).

  78. MB
    MB March 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    Oh, Jesus. You made me hate law school all over again. Eventually, you’ll be able to put some distance between you and this kind. Pick your career path wisely, and good luck, Jill.

  79. this guy
    this guy March 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    i’m not generally very judgemental on people’s language choices and i’ve definitely said, heard and laughed at stuff that could easily be considered offensive by some people.

    but the language and thoughts on that site BLOWS ME AWAY.

    I’m a dude and i’m privvy to lots of other dudes’ thoughts and feelings and jokes that they wouldn’t share with the public or with women. but i’ve NEVER heard any other dudes talking like this. or even talking in a way that hinted they might talk like this when afforded anonymity. reading that stuff really left me at a loss for words. and the fact that there are soooo many of them is also mind blowing. who are these people and where did they come from? even someone as outrageous as tucker max never went anywhere close to this kind of thing.

    and what’s with the intense hatred? seriously, where does that come from??

  80. Rheinhard
    Rheinhard March 7, 2007 at 6:22 pm |

    Just linked over from Atrios. I have just reached the ripe old age of 40 and so am too old for the MySpace and things the kids are into on the Intertubes these days (hell, I still read email in a UNIX terminal window!), but I am a long time anime fan I couldn’t believe that this jerk you mention posts under GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka).

    In case you’re unfamiliar, this is a Japanese animation show in which the eponymous main character, a 20-something Japanese thug (with a heart of gold), decides he’ll become a high-school teacher mainly because it affords him the opportunity to hook up with cute high school girls in those beloved Japanese style school sailor uniforms. Although Onizuka eventually does end up helping otherwise troubled students and their families, the character is definitely crude and sexist. Fitting for this jagoff, I suppose.

    Now my eponymous anime character, on the other hand, is a strategic genius who dedicates himself to reforming a corrupt aristocracy and overthrowing an oppressive noble class. We need more like this on the left! :-)

  81. Eli
    Eli March 7, 2007 at 6:24 pm |

    Oh, how I hate Ann Althouse, who proves once again that she is as feminist as she is nonpartisan.

    Stereotyping aside, I used to think lawyers had to be pretty damned intelligent to get through all the complexities of the law, and I’m just in awe of the intelligence and cogency of liberal lawyers like Glenn Greenwald… and then there’s peabrained asshats like Althouse and Reynolds and Assrocket and these knuckledraggers.

    I always hear about how hard law school is, and how hard it is to pass the bar, but if people THIS STUPID can do it, and even become law *professors*, how hard can it possibly be? No offense intended to Jill or zuzu or any of the other good lawyers, it’s just something I have a hard time reconciling.

    Also, it looks like we can thank the internets for another first: Distributed stalking. The march of progress never stops.

  82. ColumbiaDuck
    ColumbiaDuck March 7, 2007 at 6:25 pm |

    I read the post story this morning and am sorry you went through that. i really wonder how the guys that run that board would feel if they were subjected to some of the rhetoric and violent threats that they are encouraging on their site (and they are encouraging it via their ridiculous defense of it). Frankly, their actions are disgusting and they should be ashamed of themselves. Would they be all right with someone posting their cell phone number online? Or with someone cataloging their daily movements? Of course not, they would be outraged by that invasion of privacy. Yet since it is not them (and it’s getting them free press), it’s ok. And free speech would not be compromised by forcing people to use their real names when posting. Free speech isn’t even really applicable to this at all – what segment of government do these jokers belong to?

  83. The Internet is unregulated « :: memory pocket ::

    [...] It’s something everybody knows, sure, but the consequences are far-ranging. Here’s a post at Feministe about a message board at a law [...]

  84. Ancrene Wiseass
    Ancrene Wiseass March 7, 2007 at 6:28 pm |

    I’m sorry you have to deal with this, Jill. This is terrifying stuff. Which is, of course, the point: if you complain about your personal information being posted in a way that could damage you professionally, these bullies just say nastier, more threatening things and find ways to ensure that more bandwith gets dedicated to the damaging content. So, apart from being asshats in general, these guys are pathetic, whiny little cowards.

  85. Syd B
    Syd B March 7, 2007 at 6:29 pm |

    law school students or those that want to be law school students are some of the worst pieces of insecure shit that one is likely to come across in this short life. It is no stereotyping. I went to law school and I am a lawyer. I know many of these muppets think.

    I am sorry that they levelled there site on you.

    Great blog by the way … I am here by way of Bitch Ph.D.

    grrrrils are awesome

  86. ignoreland
    ignoreland March 7, 2007 at 6:30 pm |

    Would it be too creepy to suggest turning this on its head? After all, Univ of Wisconsin must have students with camera phones – encourage them to snap candid photos of Althouse going into the restroom, bending over to pick up stuff, eating, etc., then publish them on your own web page.

    And find the guys who are contributing to these posts. You know them – they only study with other guys, punch each others’ shoulders and high-five each other, ride all squashed up in each others’ jeeps, loudly brag about all the action they’re getting to each other. Start a ‘little dick’ contest and speculate on how anyone could be that small and hope to reproduce. Find their old girlfriends – assuming they have any – and get ‘em to talk about premature ejaculation. Aw, heck – make it up!

    Let them get a taste of the shoe in their other end.

  87. ilyka
    ilyka March 7, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    I’d be interested to see the ratio of offensive to non-offensive posts tehre, if the information is available.

    It isn’t, but you can see how well they got the message last time, if you’re interested.

    See, it’s all fun and games to these privileged brats: They aren’t hating on minorities or women; they’re just hosting an amateur production of The Aristocrats! Only minus the funny, minus the talent, and minus the brains. Other than all that it is exactly the same.

  88. Susan
    Susan March 7, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    zsa:

    Much as the term “miserable failure” (until google blocked it) pointed to the worst president ever, it’s not impossible for the names “Anthony Ciolli” and “Jarrett Cohen” to link to the most obectionable of their comments.

    That’s a great idea; maybe they could compete to be the top Google hit for “Asshat.” Except there’s so much competition.

  89. Roundup » Sly Civilian
    Roundup » Sly Civilian March 7, 2007 at 6:42 pm |

    [...] categorized Still busy, but I have some notable stories as of late. Ann A is still a goddamn tool. Zuzu pissed me off. Allies are amazing. Ser [...]

  90. ME
    ME March 7, 2007 at 6:44 pm |

    Yeah, lawyers are assholes…. nothing new there.

    You are absolutely stunning though…I can see why you were getting so much attention.

  91. Janis
    Janis March 7, 2007 at 6:47 pm |

    IF YOU SHOW YOUR FACE THEN YOU ARE A SLUT ADN WHORE AND MUST BE PUNISHED?

    Burqa, anyone? I hear they used to beat women who showed their faces on the street with chains during the days of the Taleban, and probably still do, to be honest.

    Online, if you don’t recreate yourself as faceless, you invite “hate-fucking” and rape.

    Anyone who likes to say that the west is any better about allowing women to exist in public than the Taleban is welcome to read this thread. Christ, they react with such foamy-mouthed savagery to a mere female face. Just being reminded of our existence/i> is enough to turn them into rabid mongrels. Amazing. Fucking amazing.

    I do, however, entertain no illusions whatsoever about the things that men say about women in private, even the supposed “good guys” and “not my husband” types. I don’t lie to myself, I don’t go into denial over it. I just do without them. No men, no marriage, no kids. Me, my job, my cat, my female roommate who pulls her weight around the apartment.

    Now awaiting the legions of men who will scream about how they are BEING OPPRESSED ZOMG!!!1!!!!11! because one woman in the universe has consciously decided to take her pussy offline to them …

  92. ahunt
    ahunt March 7, 2007 at 6:47 pm |

    Miserable, sniveling, tiny shriveled pricks!

    What cowards. How I wish the “authors” of this outrage could be outed, and subsequently be made to experience the kind of fear and humilation they generate in their targets. Won’t happen, of course. Cowards like these can rely on the “men are not responsible for their loathesome conduct” until the earth crashes into the sun. “Tis one of the perks of being of being male.

  93. Kate
    Kate March 7, 2007 at 6:49 pm |

    What bullshit. I can’t believe they tried to turn it around on you and say that you’re “shy of overexposure.” Maybe you just don’t want to be judged “hot or not” by a bunch of immature wankers.

  94. Steve Jung
    Steve Jung March 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm |

    This is just shameful, and actions like these that are clearly intended to harass and intimidate women who try to pursue legal careers should be thoroughly investigated by the law schools these scum attend. I also don’t know what State these jerks live in, but perhaps they should also be reported to the State bars of the States in which they plan to practice in advance of their applications for membership. These guys are clearly not morally fit for being lawyers or for any other profession for that matter.

  95. Evil Male Oppressor
    Evil Male Oppressor March 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm |

    I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog. What, or more specificaly, whom is she targeting with that weapon. It isn’t exactly clear, but I imagine that person wouldn’t be wearing a dress. Feminists spend an awful lot of time pointing out all the hatred that (some) men have for women, but precious little time trying to figure out where all that hate comes from. To the extent that such a dialogue exists, it usually follows the following infantile logic:

    Men hate women because they’re bad. They have all the good toys and get to play at recess all day while women have to do multiplication tables. Men don’t want to share their toys with women or have their perpetual recess interupted so they oppress women by means of the “Patriarchy”.

    It doesn’t occur to the feminst mind (from my perspective) that the hate they describe is part of a cause and effect relationship. Maybe these men have learned to hate women as a reaction to the years of hatred and disrespect they have received from women. The reality is that hatred doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Boys and girls are socialized at an early age to resent and distrust one another. This is the product of extreme sexual repression in our society. Young women are often very disrespectful and inconsiderate of the feelings of their male counterparts. I often find that women have little or no empathy for men or any interest in understanding the masculine perspective. With feminists this is especially true. Some feminists come out and say that the male perspective is fundamentally flawed and that men should be re-educated. Note, there is nothing wrong with what women are doing. They are helpless victims. It’s all the fault of men that things are bad.

    The notion that men hold all the cards in this society is absurd. Whatever instances of unfair discrimination exist (and there certainly is unfair discrimination on both sides) the quality of life for women in society is generally the same as men. I would argue that it’s somewhat better for women given that they live longer than men in the US, something that is not true in all societies. The whole notion that men are somehow dominant is laughable to any guy who has ever been married (or any guy who knows a guy who is married). Whatever horrible things some men do to women, the majority of men are actually rather sensitive to protecting women, and this is especially true should someone do something upsetting to a female family member. This in no way suggests that things are great or that they couldn’t be improved. Far from it, the existence of so much misogyny/misandry is clear evidence that things need to change.

    This process could begin by acknowledging the root causes of misogyny. Why do men objectify women? It’s simple, objects can’t hurt you the way people do. Men are conditioned to pursue women sexually. Women are conditioned to resent that men do this. Women often reject the advances of men in the harshest possible way. Contrary to popular myth, men actually have feelings. It hurts to be rejected. Contrary to another popular myth, men don’t generally perceive women as pieces of meat. They know they’re supposed to, but often they find themselves overwhelmed by the human desire to attempt to pair-bond. And when their efforts to do so with a girl who they find especially drawn to are met with the cold shoulder by which women typically respond to such advances (as they are conditioned to do) it hurts that much more. So it’s much easier to look at women as bitches and hos. But tellingly, this only applies to women outside of a male’s immediate family, especially those he might have a sexual attraction to. What do you suppose Dr. Dre means when he says, “Bitches ain’t shit but ho’s and tricks”? Do you suppose that applies to his mom? How about his sister? Just go ahead and try to tell Dre that his mom is a ho and his sister is a trick, see where that gets you.

    It’s all about sex. It begins during adolescence and continues through early adulthood. Some people grow out of it, some don’t. But it create an absolutely toxic environment of resentment and distrust. It serves no useful purpose and honestly, it’s a wonder any healthy heterosexual relationships are ever formed at all. The natural attraction between men and women usually spurs women to rationalize that, whil most men are pigs and sex with men is dirty and wrong, it’s OK with the guy they have grown to like because he’s different. With men, once the pair-bond is formed the female is removed from the “hos and tricks” category and gains status as a human being who is afforded the same treatment as his female family members. This of course can change instantly should the relationship end badly, in which case the girl is relagated to “trick-ass-bitch-slut-whore” status.

    This mindset is harmful to both men and women and it contributes greatly to the poisoned political situation in the US. The truth is that men aren’t generally any different than women in their motivations or behavior. You seem to be distressed by the reality that some men want to look at your butt. Well, that’s what men do. I don’t need the guilt trip about that. I don’t read Playboy for the articles and I don’t go to Hooters for wings. I go there because there are hot girls in shorts. They don’t seem to mind if I check out their butts, which is a bonus. I’ll start to feel bad about judging the sexual value of women based (at least in part) on the quality of their respective butts when women start going to the unemployment office to meet men. Men like what they like. Women like what they like. People shouldn’t be dicks about it, but it doesn’t make a guy a bigot to like a girl with a nice butt anymore than it makes a girl a bigot for liking guys who are in bands. I really wish people could accept this sort of thing and quit trying to marginalize what is clearly normal behavior.

    I close my argument with the following facts.

    1. Women overwhelmingly want to be treated fairly with regards to employment and do not want to be sexually harrassed in the workplace, and they want more female political representation. Most men accept this as reasonable.

    2. The abortion issue is far more complicated, but a clear majority favor Roe vs. Wade, and men are no less likely than women to be pro-choice.

    3. Sexual assault is a major concern for most women. Women very much want to be protected from the threat of rape.

    4. Only 25% of women call themselves feminists.

    Why the discrepency? The answer is obvious and I know you don’t want to hear it but I’m saying it anyway. It’s because women generally don’t hate men. They may be conditioned to be resentful of men and masculine sexuality specifically, but they can’t quite bring themselves to hate and resent men the way so many in the feminist movement clearly do. It’s just silly to deny it. It’s like conservatives denying that Ann Coulter speaks for the bulk of their movement’s followers, or tryng to distance themselves from her ugly slurs because they aren’t quite as vulgar as she is. You may not go so far as the worst, but the sentiment is the same, as evidenced by the obviously misandrist illustration on your blog. Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…

    I’m sure it’s all an innocent little bit of fun, right?

  96. adm
    adm March 7, 2007 at 7:06 pm |

    i’m so sorry you have to go through this. i’m sorry anybody does. it makes me sick, like, seriously, i’m feeling nauseous after reading this , especially knowing that these people are a) allowed to live and b) going to be lawyers. jesus dammit.

  97. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 7, 2007 at 7:06 pm |

    I’d be interested to see the ratio of offensive to non-offensive posts tehre, if the information is available.

    it’s about 50/50, if you want to know the truth. you’re familiar with trolls? they are the bane of xo and the curse of any unregulated medium, i suppose. unlike other sites, very few posters are banned, and they are therefore encouraged to run amok, farting naked all over the carpet. but the same anonymity and freedom that allows these trolls to flourish, to post constantly about niggers, jews, whores, etc. attracts a wide range of law students and encourages open and honest discussion between like few other forums. don’t let all the flame fool you; it’s not just misogynists and white supremacists posting. a significant percentage of major posters are women and minorities. there is even a troll dedicated to promoting interracial dating. there is a certain pleasure in transgressing boundaries, in violating taboos, and xo provides a space to do that without taking responsibility.

    as xo has grown, the nature of the board has been abused in various ways. this latest trend of persecuting innocent individuals is indefensible. i am sorry jill was targeted, and i can say with confidence that the majority of xo posters are repulsed by it. in fact, the main perpetrators are not law students or lawyers at all, but un(der)employed outcasts and sociopathic undergrads who have taken advantage of the space created by xo.
    perhaps this recent publicity and other pressure will persuade the owners of xo to do something about it, though they appear to be circling the wagons. i do hope some solution can be reached that protects individuals like those mentioned in the article while preserving the essence of xo, but at heart is a problem which extends beyond the boundaries of the site and will continue to be a problem as the internet goes through its growing pains.
    wgwag

  98. Marc
    Marc March 7, 2007 at 7:09 pm |

    After you put your pix behind a flickr firewall, there are no end of great replacement pix you can use to mock your tormentors. Be creative.

  99. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 7, 2007 at 7:10 pm |

    Let’s see, direct personal abuse and threats = picture of a small girl with a gun.

    It has now been officially determined that it is indeed possible for human beings to live with nothing but shit for brains.

  100. Lauren
    Lauren March 7, 2007 at 7:11 pm |

    Evil Male Oppressor = 1L

  101. Alex
    Alex March 7, 2007 at 7:12 pm |

    Came here from Atrios and was very disturbed by what I’ve read here. I’m sorry you had to go through all of this. My wife just finished law school last year and I remember her mentioning to me how law students pretty much go through the ringer when they have to go before a state bar so as to make sure they are “lawyer material”. So this means that they can’t do anything egregious during law school because the state bar could simply not allow the student to become a lawyer. I hope I’m remembering this correctly.

    I know you’re probably not looking for suggestions on what to do, but just in case, I recommend sending an email to the message board admins (or site owners) informing them that unless they remove all posting and threads relating to yourself, you will sue them for the IP addresses of all the posters on their boards. You can then take these IP addresses and backtrack them all to the schools these assholes are supposedly posting from and inform their administrations about their respective actions. Hell, I would let the posters know that this is possible and see how they react. For people trying to become lawyers, it’s incredibly stupid to post comments like these on the internet since almost all traffic be tracked very easily back to its origin.

    I hope this helps and good luck.

  102. kent
    kent March 7, 2007 at 7:15 pm |

    Wow! That is some world class hate going on. But Althouse will defend them because they are members of her tribe.

    The fact that reynolds and althouse teach law, and have so much traction in the media industrial complex is an indictment of western civilization.

    That PaulieFuckNutz character is an archetype of entitled white male privilege. I hope someone or something will eventually remove that smug grin off of his face.

  103. lf
    lf March 7, 2007 at 7:19 pm |

    ugh. Isn’t this illegal? Check out registering the photos with the us copyright office.

    http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/primer.aspraigslist.org/

    photographers do it all the time to protect thier images.

  104. peggy
    peggy March 7, 2007 at 7:20 pm |

    Remember Jeff Gannon. If his real identity could be established, maybe the same can be done for your tormentors. Perhaps spreading this story, to Kos?, might be a good idea.
    Tying their comments indelibly to their names would be a career damaging revenge.

  105. Ginger Yellow
    Ginger Yellow March 7, 2007 at 7:20 pm |

    My sympathies, Jill and to anyone else who has had to endure this. Whatever you do, don’t take this lying down. Use every legal and other avenue available to you to get that stuff offline. That shit is all sorts of wrong.

  106. Eli
    Eli March 7, 2007 at 7:21 pm |

    I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure that most of time guys that guys get shot down cruelly, it’s because they were coming on like a complete jerk.

    I have found that simply by *not* being a complete jerk, most women are very nice to me. Even when I would get shot down (which was most of the time), it was done very politely.

    If you act like a jerk, you get *treated* like a jerk, and that’s nobody’s fault but yours. Alas, most jerks are completely oblivious to their own jerkitude, and believe themselves to be oppressed victims of a world that hates them for absolutely no reason at all. (Which is not to say that there aren’t a whole lot of jerks who think their jerkitude is their most awesome quality…)

  107. Creeped out.
    Creeped out. March 7, 2007 at 7:22 pm |

    They have responded:
    At: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591664&mc=7&forum_id=2#7723048

    Jill,

    The long missive posted on your blog today underscores your hypocrisy. A while back, you adamantly opposed Gary He’s attempts to publish a Miss NYU calendar. You called it sexist, exploitive, and offensive. But you freely participate in a feminist fashion show and defend your right to pose in provocative positions on your Flickr pics. (Not the bikini, but the dress and the “almost showing panty” picture.) Why is that not exploitation? I assume you feel superior to the other women who would have posed for Mr. He, but I assure you that this is not the case.

    Furthermore, you posted the names of the people who run XO and continue to wrongly associate them with the T14 Contest. Just because XO links to a website does not mean XO created that website. In fact, XO brought the T14 site down by making threats against its proprietors — and was much more effective than you or Reputation Defenders. For this, they have earned your libel. Bring a legal action if you will; the same will be visited against you, and your negligent defamation.

    Also, why is everything about you? All these women are suffering, and you talk about yourself. You bring up events from years ago. Yes, you feel their pain. But then you cavalierly co-opt the suffering of rape victims by drawing parallels between the pain of their experiences and your imagined plight. Excuse me, Ms. Filipovic. You posted 4,000 pictures of yourself on the Internet. Some were provocative. Men commented nastily on those pictures. So what? Rape victims have it a lot worse. Don’t deign to understand what they feel; don’t dare to say this is even close to anything you have ever experienced.

    Go away.

    Lathorpe

  108. car
    car March 7, 2007 at 7:23 pm |

    I know it’s been mentioned before, and you know more about it than I do, but aren’t there certain ethics rules to keeping a law license, sort of like a medical license? These guys shouldn’t even be able to practice once they get out, with this kind of thing in their background, assuming their state of residence and bar exam were to be made aware of it.

    And yeah, if they are in law school and still think this is ok, I think it speaks very badly of all of their law schools.

  109. Eli
    Eli March 7, 2007 at 7:26 pm |

    I know it’s been mentioned before, and you know more about it than I do, but aren’t there certain ethics rules to keeping a law license, sort of like a medical license?

    There is an overwhelming quantity of empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, or at least that these ethics rules are enforced very loosely, if at all.

  110. ahunt
    ahunt March 7, 2007 at 7:29 pm |

    The answer is obvious and I know you don’t want to hear it but I’m saying it anyway. It’s because women generally don’t hate men

    Tell you what, EMO…when eeeevil, manhating feminists behave in the manner that these complete jackasses have behaved…get back with us.

  111. Evil Male Oppressor
    Evil Male Oppressor March 7, 2007 at 7:30 pm |

    Let’s see, direct personal abuse and threats = picture of a small girl with a gun.

    It has now been officially determined that it is indeed possible for human beings to live with nothing but shit for brains.

    Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. Yes, it is completely acceptable and justified to imply that that violence against men is acceptable and justified. Anyone arguing otherwise has “shit for brains”.

    But no doubt you will say that I am the hate filled bigot.

    Extremism and the hatred it spawns is the biggest problem in this country today. Nice to see you’re doing your part to add to it, lord knows there just isn’t enough hate in the world.

  112. gfw
    gfw March 7, 2007 at 7:42 pm |

    I finally deleted my myspace, friendster, flickr account, and others because (in part) of a fear of this kind of stuff. It’s just too much information online. Reptiles will always exist, and will find a way to attack if they want to. Best to give them as little info as possible.

    (This in no way excuses their despicable behavior.)

  113. gfw
    gfw March 7, 2007 at 7:44 pm |

    also, these people sound like the Late Night Shots crowd documented at Wonkette. (No link, just go to wonkette and search on “LNS.”) Same demographic anyways.

  114. johnieb
    johnieb March 7, 2007 at 7:47 pm |

    I’m sorry to hear this news on so many levels I don’t know what to say.

    But young leaders like you and Amanda and Jessica give me hope.

  115. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 7, 2007 at 8:01 pm |

    They may be conditioned to be resentful of men and masculine sexuality specifically, but they can’t quite bring themselves to hate and resent men the way so many in the feminist movement clearly do.

    Wow. You really need to get out and meet some actual feminists instead of just looking at all of the crayon drawings you made from the description that Rush Limbaugh read to you.

    Believe it or not, many of us are in relationships with — wait for it — men. Some of us are even married! Yes, it’s true.

    Generally speaking, we have developed a radar that helps us avoid the men who actively hate women. They’re pretty easy to spot, especially when they start spouting things like, “I don’t read Playboy for the articles and I don’t go to Hooters for wings. I go there because there are hot girls in shorts. They don’t seem to mind if I check out their butts, which is a bonus.”

    Hint: the waitresses at Hooters don’t seem to mind if you check out their butts because that’s what they get paid for. What, you thought they were all working there on an unpaid volunteer basis? No wonder you’re such a lousy tipper.

  116. shannon
    shannon March 7, 2007 at 8:03 pm |

    I’m sorry these jerkwads are terrible people. Don’t let bastards grind you down or something?

  117. Steve
    Steve March 7, 2007 at 8:10 pm |

    I found this whole thing appalling. As a male lawyer, I find these jackasses infuriating. Sadly, these types are far from rare in any law school.

  118. ahunt
    ahunt March 7, 2007 at 8:19 pm |

    “Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…”

    “Dad was a Demolay firearms instructor, and naturally, I grew up handling shotguns. I can assure you that the little girl in the graphic isn’t going to blow away anything. Bad form.”

    I’m only telling you this because you seem so…so… so…worried.

    “I’m sure it’s all an innocent little bit of fun, right? “

    Well, now that you mention it…

  119. spencer
    spencer March 7, 2007 at 8:20 pm |

    I’m sorry you have to deal with this bullshit, Jill.

    All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.

    Um, no it isn’t.

  120. Emma
    Emma March 7, 2007 at 8:21 pm |

    You have EVERY right to respond as you did. The use of your images, in any way let alone this manner, is abhorrent. If I were you, I’d want to pursue any legal remedy our very expensive legal education would allow. Sorry Jill…this all sucks!

  121. Not a lawyer
    Not a lawyer March 7, 2007 at 8:21 pm |

    A letter to the state bar association (when they graduate and attempt to pass the bar) could pose some serious problems for these fools.

  122. spencer
    spencer March 7, 2007 at 8:30 pm |

    I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog.

    Um, wrong.

  123. Maureen
    Maureen March 7, 2007 at 8:33 pm |

    “Sorry, Sally, but it looks like there’s an online community of people who want to rape you. We just don’t think that type of lawyer would fit in here at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt.”

    A bit OT, but I think that type of lawyer would fit in perfectly at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt.

    I first realized no group, no matter how “elite”, was free of anti-woman assholes during a Model UN conference in high school. The trick is to expose them.

  124. Jeff Fecke
    Jeff Fecke March 7, 2007 at 8:44 pm |

    bc90 asked:

    How would the guys running this little contest like it if a bunch of gay men set up a site about THEM and started following them into locker rooms at the gym with CAMERA PHONES and talking about all the things they would like to do to them with and without lube?

    They’d be working on the paperwork for the OFP within ten minutes.

    Seriously, I hate men sometimes, and this is why. It’s the “Oh, come on, we were just having fun! Lighten up about our borderline-stalking behavior!” crap that I can’t stand. Especially because I know every one of these jackasses would wilt within seconds if the tables were turned.

  125. Janis
    Janis March 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm |

    But no less disturbing than the
    picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have
    prominently displayed on your blog.

    Yeah, cuz one in three MEN end up in the emergency room from shotgun qounds inflicted by women.

    Oh, right. Sorry.

  126. ginmar
    ginmar March 7, 2007 at 8:51 pm |

    And these guys say feminists hate men. Wow.

  127. nwrain
    nwrain March 7, 2007 at 8:55 pm |

    Your story sickened me, and I’m pretty jaded.

    I was using the Georgetown Law School Library once and was stunned at the vicious racist and sexist graffiti in the men’s room. It was the worst I had ever seen anywhere. These jerks are the online version.

    These hatemongers have created an informal “organization” to tear down a group whose members are in part their competition for jobs and a decent life. It also pumps up their own self-esteem — that woman in class who seems so smart is someone who has somehow cheated or is otherwise beneath them.

    These men are sworn political opponents of women and minorities, and they will be all their lives. I guess that’s why Althouse is so sympathetic to them, she sees them as members of her political tribe. That’s also partly why they took down the man’s personal information — they were hurting one of their own.

    I think the response is to create a counterweight informal “organization” to hold them accountable. (I was reminded of those “bad date” websites.) They can be outed and reported to their schools, and to their state bars when they apply for membership. The guys taking pictures with their phones can be photographed doing that. And then there’s all the information you can get through litigation. When these slime get to be lawyers and judges and politicians, they will keep hurting women. They will never stop until they are stopped.

    This is not a side issue; these folks are the beating heart of future right wing institutions.

    Thank you so much for standing up to them and telling the story.

  128. Marti Abernathey
    Marti Abernathey March 7, 2007 at 8:56 pm |

    I recently wrote a post titled “Conservative Bloggers Have Small Cocks.” It’s about a jackass blogger that said “blogged about a jack*ss that commented that

    “ever notice how very liberal babes are usually kind of ugly?”

    Thing is, if you go to his site, he’s the nerdiest, geekiest, white bread, pocket protector Republican you’d ever meet. Their criticisms are always pointed out to the world, instead of inward. I find that peculiar and interesting. I guess self hating isn’t enough, they have to push their self loathing onto other people.

  129. Marti Abernathey
    Marti Abernathey March 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm |

    shit… i know you’re moderating..can you fix the above comment? I meant to say “I recently wrote a post titled “Conservative Bloggers Have Small Cocks.” It’s about a jackass blogger that said:

  130. TomCody
    TomCody March 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm |

    Not that this potential troll needs more encouragement…

    Women often reject the advances of men in the harshest possible way. Contrary to popular myth, men actually have feelings. It hurts to be rejected. Contrary to another popular myth, men don’t generally perceive women as pieces of meat. They know they’re supposed to, but often they find themselves overwhelmed by the human desire to attempt to pair-bond. And when their efforts to do so with a girl who they find especially drawn to are met with the cold shoulder by which women typically respond to such advances (as they are conditioned to do) it hurts that much more.

    Let me get this straight, women are supposed to just naturally (and *nicely*) accept any man’s advances every time a man tries to “pair-bond” with them? Give me a fucking break.

    I can understand that you don’t like rejection, guess what, NO ONE DOES, and you’ve probably been rejected a good number of times for you to even post this craptacular diatribe but no women owes you anything EMO. You’re probably one of the Nice Guys (TM) who thinks all women should just jump in the sack and “pair bond” with you at the drop of a hat, and you’re probably pissed women have that choice now, but my advice to you is to become a better person on the inside and out and stop blaming women for your problems.

    As far as the whole, bitch/skank/trick dynamic, you’re right, most men don’t think of their own mothers/sisters as bitches and hos but then again, your mothers/sisters aren’t related to every man in the world so guess what EMO, that means that by your own logic every male who’s NOT related to your female family members thinks your mother and your sister and any other family member with a vagina, is a BITCH and a HO.

    Just like you and men like you consider every other males female family member a bitch and a ho, and going from that that makes pretty much ALL women in men’s minds bitches and hos and I guarantee you women don’t have this thinking when it comes to men.

  131. jeff
    jeff March 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm |

    Evil Male Oppressor’s comment was moronic, although I think there were some grains of truth in it. Sadly, he wasn’t able to turn those grains of truth into anything coherent, and drowned them in rubbish. However, one response,

    “[men who actively hate women are] easy to spot, especially when they start spouting things like, “I don’t read Playboy for the articles”

    I think misses a bit, although it’s hard to say exactly what the commenter meant. Despite my best efforts at being a male feminist, I can’t give a pass on “objectification is inheritly wrong”. I DO understand how it’s often wrong in our specific societal context, and I agree that guys who go to Hooters are probably pricks – I certainly don’t. That said, I agree with EMO mostly just on one point: that there WILL be times when I look at a girl’s ass because, well, I rather like ‘em. (There is obviously a line between leering/being creepy which is a digression I’m not interested in right now). I consider myself an equal opportunity objectification feminist: in other words, when feminism has run its course and things are more or less as they should be, I think that there will be nothing wrong with many types of objectification. As it stands, in our context, it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

  132. Lindsay Beyerstein
    Lindsay Beyerstein March 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm |

    That shotgun would be a protected under the Second Amendment, if it were real. Since it’s just a picture (calm down), it’s protected under the First Amendment. What are you, some kind of Republican who hates the constitution?

  133. nwrain
    nwrain March 7, 2007 at 9:01 pm |

    i’m willing to put my money where my mouth is, but i don’t see a tip jar on your counter . . . if there is anyone you think i should send a modest contribution to whose work will lead to accountabililty for these sleazeballs, let me know.

  134. micro mel
    micro mel March 7, 2007 at 9:01 pm |

    What is wrong with these people? Would these ignorant men feel the same way and post the same horrible, derogatory comments if their girlfriends/wives/daughters/nieces were the subjects of discussion? I’m thoroughly appalled.

  135. Sirkowski
    Sirkowski March 7, 2007 at 9:04 pm |

    Wow, lawyers…

  136. bleat my little morons bleat
    bleat my little morons bleat March 7, 2007 at 9:09 pm |

    Contact their ISP (Internet Service Provider) and file an abuse complaint. AFAIK the ISP is compelled by law to investigate, and if abuse of service is found, they will cut off the offenders’ internet. If I were you, I would persue all legal options possible.

    People being abused by knuckle-draggers have to hit back, and hit back as hard as they can.

  137. RDBlogger
    RDBlogger March 7, 2007 at 9:13 pm |

    Hi Jill (and Feministe readers),

    We’re sorry to hear that you were one of the women dragged into this “contest.” In light of this posting, we thought you might be interested in our campaign to petition AutoAdmit to establish a clear and easy dispute resolution system for incidents like the “Top 14 contest,” and its accompanying commentary. ReputationDefender is dedicated to helping private individuals, including some of the women whose pictures were misappropriated for this “contest,” to protect themselves from these sorts of vitriolic and unsolicited attacks. For more information about ReputationDefender’s efforts in this matter, and to learn about how you can help, please see http://reputationdefender.com/campaign_home.php

    Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about our work. Thanks!

  138. JamesK
    JamesK March 7, 2007 at 9:13 pm |

    I have to wonder how these guys would react if a gay site started posting pictures of them along with detailed discussions of what they’d like to do to them.

    Surely they’d have no problem with it, since it’s all in good fun.

  139. witless chum
    witless chum March 7, 2007 at 9:14 pm |

    Fuck’s sake.

    I’m sorry you and the other women there had to go through that.

  140. Nellcote
    Nellcote March 7, 2007 at 9:15 pm |

    Why doesn’t Althouse just post here picture up there?

  141. Ben
    Ben March 7, 2007 at 9:22 pm |

    Just be glad the drawing of the girl doesnt have BREASTS.

    They’re a lot more dangerous. Watch out for women. They’re devious. For thousands of years they’ve been pretending to be the oppressed underclass, but all this time, they’ve been the real powerbrokers in society. DEVIOUS. I can’t believe I didn’t see it before.

    DID YOU KNOW MANY HOUSEWIVES HAVE KNIVES

    FACT

  142. Klein's tiny left nut
    Klein's tiny left nut March 7, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    It’s been over twenty years since I graduated from law school and I don’t think I’ve had a minute of nostalgia about it. Uptight, striving people, competing and constantly looking for validation from authority.

    I actually like practicing law – on the good guy side.

    You should try and find out who these assholes are, complain to their schools, the state bars that they will try and enter, and current or perspective employers. Figure out if any of them are summer associates at big ass firms, find out who the hiring partners are and shoot them an e-mail. Once you know who they are it shouldn’t be that hard to figure out the rest — and fuck them up .

  143. Lindsay Beyerstein
    Lindsay Beyerstein March 7, 2007 at 9:48 pm |

    WORD, Ben.

    Knives, breasts, votes….

    That’s some scary shit. No wonder 20-something boys are talking shit about them on the internet.

  144. matthew frederick
    matthew frederick March 7, 2007 at 9:48 pm |

    Wow. Disgusting and disturbing. While these a**holes surely are responsible for their actions, I can’t help but think that their behavoir is somewhat encouraged by the law school environment – an environment that fosters and rewards hyper-competitiveness.

    Of course, someone can be hyper-competitive w/out being a sexist /racist bigot, but it seems to me that sexist and racist attitudes are more likely to come to the fore in an environment that generally compels people to behave hyper-competitively.

    Many law schools administrations go to great pains to de-emphasize the importance of grades, “non-elite” school status, etc. when addressing their students. Yet at the same time, on-campus interviewers are told by many schools they need only interview the “top 20%,” and if a school moves up in the US News rankings, that school’s administration will be sure to crow about it.

    I’m not saying that administrations are responsible for the kind of disgusting and disturbing behavior of these a**hole students, but perhaps they should think a little bit about how their setting of priorities and fostering of environments may have somewhat contributed to such behavior.

    Then again, I’m one of those TTT law school students, so what do I know about anything? ;)

  145. junk science
    junk science March 7, 2007 at 9:51 pm |

    You clearly don’t know many actual women, so I’m just letting you know. And women also get rejected, and it hurts them to be rejected just as much as it hurts men. Yet women overwhelmingly do not behave in this way because they’re resentful towards men who won’t sleep with them. If you knew a little bit about feminist theory, you would understand why that is.

    Women don’t owe it to you to sleep with you. If they don’t sleep with you, that doesn’t make them bad people who deserve to be hated and treated badly. If you act like it does, it makes you look like the biggest, most pathetic loser on the planet.

  146. junk science
    junk science March 7, 2007 at 9:52 pm |

    Damn, the first sentence was missing from my comment: It should have been, “Look, EMO, women want to have sex just as much as men do.”

  147. doggril
    doggril March 7, 2007 at 9:55 pm |

    The guys running those kinds of sites are morons, as is Althouse. I’ve read some of her stuff; and it amazes me that someone so obviously stupid would also be so non-self-aware as to go into teaching. And I sure can’t figure out how she ever got hired. Her’s is a certifiable 3rd rate mind.

  148. Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness

    Finally… A Rare Chance For a Man To Get Some Things Off His Chest!

    Give ‘em the business, Jughead! (click for larger picture) You can tell in what high esteem I hold feminism and anti-sexism, in that such posts appear in something called “The Non-Category Category.” Well, why don’t you uppity bitches fucking…

  149. Left Wing Militia
    Left Wing Militia March 7, 2007 at 9:55 pm |

    Evil Male Oppressor is just suffering from weapon envy.

    Brian Leiter lit into these morons last year.

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/penn_law_studen.html

  150. Jodie
    Jodie March 7, 2007 at 9:58 pm |

    Anthony Ciolli was given an offer of employment by Edwards Angell in Boston. So if you want to know who would hire someone like that, now you know.

  151. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 7, 2007 at 9:58 pm |

    I think misses a bit, although it’s hard to say exactly what the commenter meant. Despite my best efforts at being a male feminist, I can’t give a pass on “objectification is inheritly wrong”

    That was me, and that wasn’t where I was going with it. It was more the commenter’s obliviousness to the fact that the women he cited who don’t seem to mind be ogled, and even encourage it, are women who are being paid to be ogled.

    There’s a difference between a peek, or even a glance, and staring like you’ve never seen a woman before. Heck, I look at guys, and I’m happily married. But I don’t think that they’re particularly into me looking at them.

  152. RacyT
    RacyT March 7, 2007 at 10:02 pm |

    Funny. I always assumed the picture of a little girl playing with a toy traditionally reserved for the opposite gender might be making a statement about traditional gender roles being outdated and inappropriate. What the hell was I thinking? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, it’s really just that I hate men. That stylized cartoon graphic is actually as offensive as having your personal information posted in a public forum as part of a thinly-veiled campaign of intimidation. But EMO (wow, that’s actually a funny acronym…!) has fortunately explained how misogyny is women’s fault for being Evil Bitches. Thanks, asshole. Never heard that argument before.

    “DID YOU KNOW MANY HOUSEWIVES HAVE KNIVES”

    hahahahaha

  153. ilyka
    ilyka March 7, 2007 at 10:06 pm |

    DID YOU KNOW MANY HOUSEWIVES HAVE KNIVES

    Why isn’t there a blog called this? I would lavish much praise upon such a blog.

  154. ahunt
    ahunt March 7, 2007 at 10:07 pm |

    “objectification is inheritly wrong”.

    Well then, let those doing the objectifying then understand when they are put under the same microscope.

    Yuks all around.

  155. ekf
    ekf March 7, 2007 at 10:10 pm |

    Jill, that roundly and truly sucks, and I’m so sorry you have been going through this ugliness. Wishes of continued strength to you.

    As a practicing attorney, I bristle a great deal at lawyer jokes (having people make light of the genocide of one’s profession isn’t cool in my book), but it’s chicken fried bullshit to assert that lawyer jokes are the same as a massive invasion of privacy cake frosted with a thick layer of sexual harassment and topped with stalking sprinkles (sorry for the food metaphors — I’m still in the office at 8:45 and damned hungry).

    What you and other women are being made to suffer is unconscionable, and it should really be dealt with by the top law firms, who should make an explicit policy that anyone known to post on that site will not get an offer, period. While there are dipshit lawyers who revel in sexism, their risk management departments should see that the firm could be exposed to a lawsuit if they knew their servers were used to spread hate speech or engage in sexual harassment and did nothing about it (and, with little way of policing the issue, the firms would be best suited to making a bright line use of limiting access to the site).

    So, instead of outing the posters (much as that seems fun in its retributive aspect), perhaps the best thing to do would be to have friendly alums in as many AmLaw 100 firms route a copy of some of the more obviously EEOC-problematic posts to their risk management departments with a note about how the firm needs to be sure their summer associates do not participate in such behavior on the firm computers, preferably by adding the site to the firm’s list of blocked websites to avoid administrative hassle. It would at least be a start, and it would tip off major law firms about the site being Bad News. Smaller firms would follow suit by word of mouth.

    In the event that mode of activism appears too slapdash, another way to bring the issue to the attention of law firms’ risk management departments is to contact one of the legal malpractice insurance carriers and see what they think a law firm’s exposure might be if it knew its lawyers or summer clerks were posting hate speech on this website. ALAS is one of the largest carriers, and they disseminate a lot of information to their member firms with respect to risk management. If a journalist made them aware of AutoAdmit and its possibilities for exposure, they may be very interested in getting that information to their member firms.

    Large law firms, like most institutions, continue to be very, very sexist places. I found that out after graduating from a top 5 law school and going to a center-left, allegedly-family-friendly law firm. Even the best large law firms are still bad for women’s career longevity. But institutions can be valuable, because they are so risk averse. If they can be convinced that the type of behavior that goes on at AutoAdmit has the potential to cost them money, they will be highly motivated to minimize losses, especially when the fix is as easy as adding a few URLs to the already long list of blocked web addresses. Best of luck!

    Also, I wouldn’t piss on Ann Althouse to put her out if she were on fire. The profundity of her stupidity disgusts me, especially as it is combined with the abusive smugness only used by the grotesquely undeserving.

  156. norbizness
    norbizness March 7, 2007 at 10:11 pm |

    Man, that is an unfortunate cut-off point for my trackback.

  157. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 7, 2007 at 10:13 pm |

    No, norbiz, it’s good. It creates suspense. “Uppity bees fucking what? FUCKING WHAT???”

  158. Lauren
    Lauren March 7, 2007 at 10:21 pm |

    Norbiz, you’re going to get a lot of traffic on that post. But hey, very timely topic.

  159. Randolph Fritz
    Randolph Fritz March 7, 2007 at 10:22 pm |

    One thought: anyone on that board who you can identify can be reported to any bar association they apply to. I have real doubts they’d be admitted, most places.

  160. Kathryn
    Kathryn March 7, 2007 at 10:29 pm |

    Delurking to say how utterly appalling this story is. So sorry that you’re dealing with this shit. I love this site. I hate dumb-asses like those little boys.

  161. Valkyrie
    Valkyrie March 7, 2007 at 10:30 pm |

    How interesting that this coincides with something coming up on my law school school’s schedule (alum and now employee).

    “No More Early Exits: Women Respond to the ABA” symposium. The focus will be the attrition of women from legal workplaces, with special emphasis on women lawyers of color.
    Think I’ll bring this up as exhibit A.

  162. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 10:35 pm | *

    Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…

    She’s coming for you, obviously. And she’s going to shoot off your balls.

    Jesus, man, get a grip.

  163. Marith
    Marith March 7, 2007 at 10:43 pm |

    I’ve been horrified in that “can’t look away” sense by this story all night, following all the links to Jill’s old posts about xoxo, looking at that site, reading comments here, etc. It definitely is the type of situation that makes me feel rather hopeless about men in general, in spite of knowing how wrong that hopelessness may be. Thanks to all the commenters here who give me back my faith in humankind almost as quickly as it was taken away, and thank you, Jill, for writing so eloquently and thoroughly about your experience, and never getting weary of standing up to their jawdropping bullshit excuses and defenses.

    PS Ben is adorable :)

  164. Chet
    Chet March 7, 2007 at 10:46 pm |

    All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.

    Really? I must have missed the part where a bunch of us threatened to rape the lawyers if they didn’t shut up.

    You’re an idiot.

  165. ilyka
    ilyka March 7, 2007 at 10:46 pm |

    And she’s going to shoot off your balls.

    WHAT is your OBSESSION with BALLS?!? WHY is everything always about balls, balls, BALLS around here? I didn’t bring gender into this discussion about pervs stalking and harassing female law students; YOU did!

    (I’m sorry. After awhile, the wankers all start to blur together like an impressionist’s nightmare.)

  166. Jake
    Jake March 7, 2007 at 10:46 pm |

    I’m not sure exactly what to say, other then it shameful what you are having to go through and I admire tremendously your courage. I have to think its the anonymity of the message board that gives these pieces of garbage the “courage” to say such hateful things. Surely if their names were attached they wouldn’t have the guts to talk about someone like that.

    Keep your head up Jill, don’t let the bastards get you down.

  167. holly
    holly March 7, 2007 at 10:50 pm |

    I’m so sorry, Jill! Trust me, I’ve been there. A “local” KC/ Lawrence, KS “man” ripped pics off of my myspace (most self-shot) of me, and completely ripped me apart (with my pics) for months on end, on his personal website. Yeah, he’s a child, just like his followers.
    I was advised by his webhost to get a lawyer. Essentially, the webhost was completely unconcerned about the actions of this client.

    Well, I did not pursue it. I can see, based on these law school students’ behaviors, that a lawyer may have proven fruitless.

    In your case, however… this is extreme. I say give them a real education in law.

  168. Ace
    Ace March 7, 2007 at 11:13 pm |

    This is awful. I feel deeply for you having your name slandered across the internet. This shouldn’t stand, and when things like this happen, it reminds you that feminists aren’t man-hating women, although it seemed like that sometimes in college with a few of them but those are the radical man-hating feminists with an agenda. The much larger majority of feminists are just looking to get an equal shake, which they’ve made strides towards but still haven’t achieved. We are all sexual beings, but that shouldn’t get in the way of you respecting another person’s lifestyle and opinions, whether they are in agreement or contrast to your own. Jill, while you are attractive (I don’t think anyone would take offense to me saying that, would they?), you are considerably more than that and these asswads should fully respect that in you and any other woman working on trying to break the glass ceiling in the legal world. Keep on firing. The world needs more people like you.

  169. zuzu
    zuzu March 7, 2007 at 11:19 pm | *

    WHAT is your OBSESSION with BALLS?!? WHY is everything always about balls, balls, BALLS around here? I didn’t bring gender into this discussion about pervs stalking and harassing female law students; YOU did!

    But why didn’t YOU say anything about the small dick jokes?

  170. The Poor Man Institute » New frontiers in privacy

    [...] ption, on flickr, the photo sharing site. I wish this was a partisan thing, but the whole flap about LawSchoolDickheads.com or whatever they’re cal [...]

  171. Pushing Rope
    Pushing Rope March 7, 2007 at 11:20 pm |

    Internet Stalking Is Real

    Jill at Feministe has experienced online harrassment from members of AutoAdmit.com.

  172. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 7, 2007 at 11:22 pm |

    I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog.

    What? Look, I’m a pacifist, and guns squick me out, but Shweet Jesu, that’s moronic. First off, aren’t you morons the idiots who keep telling us that the Second Amendment means we can all have automatic weapons? Secondly, a picture, obviously meant to be somewhat ironic, is more directly threatening than talking about raping and brutalizing someone whom they call out by name?! Maybe you could make that argument if it was Jill holding the gun saying “You, yes you EMO. I am going to shoot you in the face.” As it stands, that isn’t the case, and your “argument” is complete idiocy.

  173. mwg
    mwg March 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    Man, that’s pathetic. If these are the kind of people who are at the top 14 law schools, the top 14 law schools don’t look so good. I also suspect that some of the losers who post at this site are going to find it used against them.

    Where’s the UW-Madison ranked these days, anyway? Althouse has to be driving it down through sheer stupidity.

  174. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 7, 2007 at 11:26 pm |

    And other people have already answered the troll. Shite.

  175. norbizness
    norbizness March 7, 2007 at 11:36 pm |

    2007 US News has NYU at #4, my alma mater at #16, and Wisconsin at #32, tied with… Fordham?!? Oh man, that’s bad.

  176. debris
    debris March 7, 2007 at 11:40 pm |

    Jill,

    As an NYU alum and soon-to-be law prof, I simply wanted to say that you are a credit to the law school and will be a credit to the legal profession.

  177. Becky
    Becky March 7, 2007 at 11:44 pm |

    I know law school and I know the law. Though there a bunch more lawyers than of old–it is a bastion of sexism–some of it may be institutional–but a lot of it is just the nature of the people the field attracts.

    Of course, there really is nothing you could about the snagged pics–they weren’t copyrighted and in the public domain. It would have been nice if they would have complied with your request to remove–that would have been the right thing–but you can not expect that to happen.

    I am not criticizing you. But I think I would have played it with a third wave wit somehow–and used enough sugar coated barbs to make my point–at least to the extent possible.

    ~Becky

  178. Anon.
    Anon. March 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm |

    In case anyone wonders about the meaning of “TTT,” I had to google it. It stands for “Third Tier Toilet.” I went to a top tier toilet and dropped out at the beginning of my third year with very few credits left to earn. It was a state school, so there were a lot of flaws with the university as a whole (bad facilities, bad undergraduates, etc.). I find this kind of TTT snobbery ridiculous because my experience of law school demonstrated to me that most American law schools have a lot of excellent features–impressive faculty members, etc.

    If law school students want to have high expectations and standards, maybe they could try working on their senses of irony and wit. Nothing was more tedious as a student than hearing other people answering professors’ questions with this phony, I’m-an-intellectual, I’m-really-wrestling-with-this-question tone of voice. It’s just an act, and it’s a stupid one.

  179. mythago
    mythago March 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm |

    As it is, our lawyer jokes remain satisfying

    Right up until you need free legal advice from your ol’ lawyer buddies, at which point you’ll haw haw about how we can take a joke, right? Cuz it’s OK to be insulting and make jokes about how we lawyers must be all assholes and should all be dead. It’s, like, a JOKE. Don’t you people have a SENSE of HUMOR? And I have this issue with my landlord, can you help?

    (No, it’s hardly on par with sexism and racism. It’s just tedious asshattery: golly, why would you be upset that I’m making nasty, stupid jokes about you, especially when you deserve them?)

    I would assume that New York has the same rules about “moral character” that most states have. Therefore, a politely worded letter to the State Bar detailing these boys’ misbehavior, threats and so forth would be in order.

    And has anyone yet contacted the managing partner at Sullivan Cromwell?

  180. Greg
    Greg March 7, 2007 at 11:51 pm |

    Quick question–doesn’t leaving pictures of women up without their permission after they’ve requested said pictures be taken down constitute harrassment? In at least a few cases, doesn’t the harrassment seem to have escalated into stalking?

    If I were a lawyer, I’d start thinking class-action.

    Good luck, Jill.

  181. kcb
    kcb March 7, 2007 at 11:53 pm |

    This is insane, Jill, and I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with this.

    Would these ignorant men feel the same way and post the same horrible, derogatory comments if their girlfriends/wives/daughters/nieces were the subjects of discussion?

    That assumes that these guys can create and maintain decent human relationships, an assumption that seems unfounded given their online comportment.

  182. Echidne of the snakes
    Echidne of the snakes March 7, 2007 at 11:55 pm |

    This is a very interesting example of how prejudices might develop. I’ve been reading the site and for a short while caught myself thinking that I would be extremely frightened to ever hire a male lawyer now to work for me. Then of course I caught myself and squashed that bigoted feeling. Because of course the misogynists writing on that site are not necessarily law students or lawyers at all and because even if they are they are only some small (?) minority of all male lawyers, most of whom are probably fairly nice people.

    But I do think the gentlemen running the site are openly misogynist and racist, and I would certainly never employ a firm that employs them.

  183. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 12:04 am | *

    I am not criticizing you. But I think I would have played it with a third wave wit somehow–and used enough sugar coated barbs to make my point–at least to the extent possible.

    “I’m not criticizing you, but here’s some criticism.”

    I’m afraid we passed the point where the honey vs. vinegar thing had any meaning with this crowd a long, long time ago. But do continue to focus on what Jill did wrong here.

  184. Jeff Fecke
    Jeff Fecke March 8, 2007 at 12:05 am |

    Mythago says:

    Right up until you need free legal advice from your ol’ lawyer buddies, at which point you’ll haw haw about how we can take a joke, right? Cuz it’s OK to be insulting and make jokes about how we lawyers must be all assholes and should all be dead. It’s, like, a JOKE. Don’t you people have a SENSE of HUMOR? And I have this issue with my landlord, can you help?

    As someone whose ex-wife is an attorney, along with two of my three best friends, and countless other acquaintances, I can say that nobody tells more lawyer jokes than lawyers. Heck, every lawyer joke I know I’ve heard from a lawyer. And I never tell them, because if you think being an attorney and getting lawyer jokes thrown at you is tedious, wait ’til you’re the only non-attorney in a room full of attorneys telling lawyer jokes.

  185. wake up?
    wake up? March 8, 2007 at 12:09 am |

    There’s a lot of self-congratulatory attention-whoring going on here. Has anyone taken down the website yet? I mean, we’re all really powerful feminist lawyers here.

  186. Radalan
    Radalan March 8, 2007 at 12:11 am |

    there really is nothing you could about the snagged pics–they weren’t copyrighted and in the public domain

    The US ratified the Berne Convention in 1988, which I believe stipulates that all creative content becomes copyrighted the moment it is created. There is no more applying for copyright. You actually have to go out of your way to release something into the public domain now.

    While I think that the Berne Convention generally sucks for its chilling effect on creativity and for what I suspect to be its true goal (to attack the culture of sharing that underlies education), in this one small way it’s working for the creator. Jill’s photos are all copyrighted.

  187. Run Up The Score
    Run Up The Score March 8, 2007 at 12:12 am |

    I know it’s been mentioned before, and you know more about it than I do, but aren’t there certain ethics rules to keeping a law license,

    That’s exactly what I was thinking, but I didn’t go to a top ten law school so what the fuck do I know?

    I’d write letters and make phone calls to the law schools, the state bar associations, and the NYT. Good luck. Fuck those assholes.

  188. mythago
    mythago March 8, 2007 at 12:23 am |

    As someone whose ex-wife is an attorney, along with two of my three best friends, and countless other acquaintances,

    “Why, some of my best friends are lawyers!” You can’t make this shit up.

  189. Blurgle
    Blurgle March 8, 2007 at 12:30 am |

    Of course, there really is nothing you could about the snagged pics–they weren’t copyrighted and in the public domain.

    Um…what are you talking about? Copyright is automatic – you don’t have to apply for it. Unless she explicitly released them into the public domain in so many words, they’re under copyright.

  190. Peter
    Peter March 8, 2007 at 12:41 am |

    i understand not wanting to have your public pictures made really public, but to climb into the pigpen and decide that you are going to be the first person ever to not get dirty? that’s just redonk.

    requesting photos be taken down? i mean, has this exact process not played itself out 15,000 times over the course of the last few years? some small thing is going on. someone raises a stink. next day, everyone and their grandma knows.

    is there a point to this post at all, besides “racism and sexism are not cool”? is it just a few thousand words of nothing? or are we supposed to actually do something?

    i say it’s time to step it up a notch. pull out all the stops. contact the school. contact ISPs. if you feel threatened, then say so. if they’re into terrorizing women, then give them something to think about. all you need is the identity of one of those bastards and we’ll have his face all over the internets. all you need is one co-operative sysadmin type who works in IT of NYU – s/he can grab an IP address and you’re on your way. of course, the terrorist picture-poster might become a hero to the right-wing hate machine, but nothing you can do about that. potential employers, however, might not dig someone like that. of course, most of the kids at the top law schools come from money, anyways.

  191. ilyka
    ilyka March 8, 2007 at 12:49 am |

    or are we supposed to actually do something?

    Nah, don’t trouble yourself. Can I get you a beer? Would you like a sandwich?

  192. Radalan
    Radalan March 8, 2007 at 1:00 am |

    Can I get you a beer? Would you like a sandwich?

    ilyka, you’ve really been on a roll recently.

  193. Aaron
    Aaron March 8, 2007 at 1:04 am |

    super creepy.
    If someone is bugging you at the school, file an ethics complaint with the school.

  194. JR
    JR March 8, 2007 at 1:25 am |

    Of course, there really is nothing you could about the snagged pics–they weren’t copyrighted and in the public domain.

    Yes, they *are* copyrighted and no, they are *not* public domain.

    I’m a photographer. It’s one area of law I know something about.

  195. Tara
    Tara March 8, 2007 at 1:32 am |

    Some women are scum. Some women are great.
    —-
    I’ll be sure to take that assessment of the Woman career choice into account when I’m making up my mind whether to apply to Woman School.

    That’s a great response. I’m a fan of your writing and thinking.

  196. The Debate Link
    The Debate Link March 8, 2007 at 1:37 am |

    Negative Gain Roundup

    I actually have made negative progress on my finals this week. The four pages I’ve written are washed out by the five page paper I only just today was informed/remembered I had. Net: negative one page. Speaking of finals and failing, I also played in…

  197. Meri
    Meri March 8, 2007 at 1:43 am |

    Short summarization of the assholes: “Blah, blah, blah, not important, blah, blah, blah, you should’ve seen it coming, blah, blah, blah, you’re just as bad, blah, blah, blah, you’re so egocentric, blah, blah, blah.”

    I had something similar (though not nearly as bad) happen to me once where someone posted my picture (without my knowledge or consent, of course) on a livejournal group about whether or not that person (typically woman) was fuckable. That was horrible enough without anyone making threats to harm me. Some people need to have their sense of entitlement fixed.

  198. raging red
    raging red March 8, 2007 at 2:01 am |

    But do continue to focus on what Jill did wrong here.

    I love how she’s being criticized both for overreacting and for not going after these assholes strongly enough.

  199. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 2:35 am |

    Can I get you a beer?

    Men like beer…I see what you did there!

    “Why, some of my best friends are lawyers!” You can’t make this shit up.

    Read the faq!

    /snark

    Anyway, yes you do own the copyright of anything you create. They can link to your pictures and they can maybe use thumbnails under fair use, but they can’t reproduce the pictures themselves without consent. (Unless they are a search engine with an automated indexing service blah blah…I am not a lawyer but I have read the copyright infringement findings on a number of cases)

    Beyond that, you can talk to the ISP of the hosts of the site or of certain people posting on the site.

    After looking at AutoAdmit for a bit, while it is a pretty lame site not everyone there is horrible. There seems to be an understanding that the law school part of the site is particularly bad and I did see some sympathetic voices there. The main thread about the WaPo article has a number of people pointing out that the two site owners come off like jackasses. (Random Observer – doing actual minor research since late 2006!)

    So going after the host ISP is probably a bad idea as it will create a lot of collateral damage and generate resentment among people genuinely uninvolved.

    Unfortunately it looks like a case of bad apples – a *lot* of bad apples.

    Posting information about a male attorney started a shit storm, which eventually ended in the Hot Girls contest getting shut down, essentially as punishment for the creator outing someone.

    According to WaPo, their main argument is that they don’t police the messages at all, and hence are not responsible for any content. This is an argument that may have legal merit. If what you wrote above is accurate and they did police messages on their own site (not in the t14 site) then that argument goes out the window.

    That is probably your best avenue. If they were responsive to privacy concerns in some instances they have no excuse not to be responsive to yours.

  200. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 2:40 am |

    Of course, there really is nothing you could about the snagged pics–they weren’t copyrighted and in the public domain.

    As Radalan said, you sure don’t seem to know much about copyright law. I took one (1) class in Entertainment Law for Filmmakers and even I knew you were wrong:

    Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

    As soon as Jill took those pictures, under current law, she held the copyright. Putting them on the internet does not void the underlying copyright, and I’m pretty sure these guys would never win a fair use argument.

  201. Dan
    Dan March 8, 2007 at 2:48 am |

    To be fair to autoadmit, the guys who run it made a defensible decision to a) not moderate their website and b) not require posters to give any identifying info.

    There are a lot of nasty people who take way too much liberty with internet anonymity on autoadmit, but there has also been some very good information. When I was applying to law school four years ago, there were very limited online resources for law school applicants. I went to a public university, and I had no friends at my school who were applying to top ranked law schools. The school’s pre-law advisor said that I was in very good shape for applications, but that she didn’t know much about the schools I was looking at. I went online for research, and what was available was the University of Chicago applicant/admitted boards and the Princeton Review forums.

    Ciolli’s big jump was that, when Princeton Review changed its forum to a new format that was more difficult to navigate and less useful, he privately hosted a forum that resembled the old Princeton Review site that people had liked. I don’t think that gives him the responsibility of wrangling a bunch of people who are supposed to be adults.

    Whenever there is something going on that would bring law students and lawyers looking for information from unofficial sources onto the internet, I continue to find good information at autoadmit and thoughtful, helpful people show up there during those periods. Anonymity unleashes a lot of people’s racism and vulgarity, but it also lets people talk candidly about schools and their admissions experiences, firms and interviews. There was even a good post bar exam obsession/commisseration thread.

    When I read the site on a regular basis, however, it was generally considered verboten to post personal or identifying information about other students or posters on the site, and that used to be moderated. I think that Ciolli decided to stop doing that, when people started complaining that he edited some threads, but ignored other objectionable material, and he opted for a food-fight instead of micromanaging the posts.

  202. defenestrated
    defenestrated March 8, 2007 at 2:48 am |

    Oh my god. I’ve had to remind myself to breathe several times while reading through this post and thread. And I had always thought that was sort of just a figure of speech.

    Then I went and changed all my privacy settings all over the intertubes. Ironically enough, that process gave me enough 2s and 2s to put together to realize that an ex has been e-stalking me, but he’s going to have a much harder time now.

    On a lighter note,

    And I never tell them, because if you think being an attorney and getting lawyer jokes thrown at you is tedious, wait ’til you’re the only non-attorney in a room full of attorneys telling lawyer jokes.

    Yeah, try a family road trip with your two lawyer parents and your ex-lobbyist step-parent. To be fair, the full combination only tends to occur if we’re heading to a relative’s funeral, but that only makes it worse because etiquette requires me to say whatever the hell they want.

  203. anoncollegestudent
    anoncollegestudent March 8, 2007 at 2:59 am |

    While I find plenty of content on autoadmit to be patently offensive, I think there is something to be said that for so many prospective law students in the dark about what really goes on besides academics and hiring, it can serve as a rude awakening to the kind of behaviors that frequently make it into selective law schools and firms beyond them. The idea that somehow we have departed from the white shoe culture of the early 20th century in the worst sense of the word for something much better today is a far cry from the truth, yet it is a idealistic picture frequently portrayed to so many individuals considering a career in jurisprudence. I myself fell subject to the naivety that if you just go to the right level of law school, Yale, Columbia, what have you, then most of personalities that give law school a bad name would largely fall away to the margin.

  204. M
    M March 8, 2007 at 3:32 am |

    I found out a couple of years ago that some pictures I’d taken of family members were being used on boards in ways I didn’t like, so I moved them all. There are still attempts to link to them. I actually had someone show up in my LJ account and complain about it because they were linking to some other pics of mine on their myspace page. I mean, for fuck’s sake, if you’re going to steal someone’s pictures the least you could do is host them elsewhere. I have a generous bandwidth limit but still.

    This was nowhere near as bad as what you’re experiencing I know but fear of some sort of e-stalking is one of the things that continues to keep me from posting pictures online.

  205. mythago
    mythago March 8, 2007 at 3:58 am |

    I love how she’s being criticized both for overreacting and for not going after these assholes strongly enough.

    Well, duh. She’s a WOMAN. There are NO right choices.

  206. Auguste
    Auguste March 8, 2007 at 4:13 am |

    Well, duh. She’s a WOMAN. There are NO right choices.

    Why so hostile? All they’re saying is that you’re damned if you do [have a vagina], damned if you don’t [have a penis.] You know, for people who aren’t used to the way feminists talk, it’s kind of a shock to the system to see such bucking of basic societal conventions. Maybe take some time to explain yourselves so that we men will be more willing to listen to what you have to say…

    …ladies.

    /half-assed typical IBTP troll impersonation

  207. tigtog
    tigtog March 8, 2007 at 4:45 am |

    Bugger, I tried to send a ping but it’s not here. I tangentially referenced this post in my Blog Against Sexism Day post (as it’s already IWD evening here in Australia).

    Blog Against Sexism Day: good guys and gold stars

    I also crossposted it to an Oz-politics group blog, and I got three sexist trolls straight out of the gate. Whee!

  208. Kali
    Kali March 8, 2007 at 4:47 am |

    This Ciolli, this Cohen. Are they hot? I cant quite bring myself to suggest that someone should follow them around on campus with cellphone cameras (wish I could do a better job shaking the moral high ground off my boots) but surely we could at least have a beauty contest and discuss which of them would look better bent over on the end of a giant pink dildo.

    After all, while the behaviour described in this post is disturbing, an image of phallic power controlled by a FEMALE is even more disturbing! If you’re in the running for the title of world’s most pathetic, insecure knobhead, which apparently these tedious entitlementbots are. Hmm, maybe we should just run that contest.

    (I am experimenting with swearwords that get past the modbot, but I really need something stronger than knobhead or bell end. )

  209. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager March 8, 2007 at 4:48 am |

    Well, duh. She’s a WOMAN. There are NO right choices.

    Nonsense. The right choice is obviously what the man decides.

    Jill, I am sorry to hear about what you and the others have experienced. If they continue doing this, I would think that it would we worthwhile going after them through the law. As we are all aware, this is obviously not legal.

    If there is any justice, there will be absolutely no jobs for Anthony Ciolli and Jarret Cohen when they have finished their studies. Their current and past behaviour shows them completely wrong for dealing with other people, as lawyers obviously have to do. And they obviously have a very limited understanding of the law.

  210. Kali
    Kali March 8, 2007 at 5:02 am |

    Or maybe just slash them. I think that’s what I’d do. Hold a little fanfic contest (not on feministe, obviously) for best Ciolli/Cohen/other EntitledAssholes.com posters slash. Encourage the dark stuff. Provide some choice quotes for writers to get an idea of their characters, and invite fandom to really go to town on them, get the creepy stuff out of their systems. That is honestly the only way I can think of to give these guys a taste of something equivalent to their own medicine. And even then it wouldn’t be really even close to equivalent, because, hello, STALKING. But I think it would be enough to scare these weenies; guys who talk like that are terrified of female sexual subjectivity.

  211. pippa
    pippa March 8, 2007 at 5:04 am |

    Jill. Much love and good thoughts to you. This is utterly appalling and i can’t believe that nothing can be done about it. If there is anything at all I can do…no matter how small/big etc please let me know. You have all my support and concern. Pippa x

  212. Catherine Martell
    Catherine Martell March 8, 2007 at 5:19 am |

    Jill – like many of those above, just offering my support and best wishes. Please fight this in whatever way you can: this situation is totally disgusting, this culture needs to change, and these asshats need to be brought up short.

    Kristjan Wager says:

    If there is any justice, there will be absolutely no jobs for Anthony Ciolli and Jarret Cohen when they have finished their studies.

    I quite agree. Is there any way we supporters of Jill can organise some sort of effort to ensure that? I love the idea of Googlebombing their names with their own worst excesses. Presumably there is also some kind of disciplinary procedure at their law school for harassment or other offences? Ideally something that will go on a permanent record? Or are there any organisations representing women in the legal profession that this should be brought to the attention of?

    I will gladly help, if there’s anything I can do. An example should be made of these pigs before more women get hurt.

  213. VJ
    VJ March 8, 2007 at 5:27 am |

    I say go after ‘em hammer & tongs. Make ‘em sweat, make ‘em cry and then make ‘em pay. Sue them, sue the ISP’s, sue the Uni’s if necessary, sue their parents from which basements they post from in their tiny tighty whitey’s. Find them. Mock them, and sue them for whatever they possess. Their jammies, the jam in the fridge, their old skid laden dirty undies. Get NOW to do it, the Feminist Majority, whomever. make it a crusade. Make it the next BIG THING. NEVERMORE shall any girl, kid, or women be cyber stalked in such a manner, attacked, harassed, humiliated on such a scale for no damn reason other than she’s posted Private Photo’s of herself on the net. START today. YOU OWN your own image. This is the essence of true democracy. NO GOVERNMENT can take this from you, no citizen should be able to appropriate it for their own ends WITHOUT your CONSENT. That’s just a BASIC right. Take it to the streets. Take it to Their streets. Their HOMES. Picket them. Picket their workpalces, the firms that hire them, or where they intern. Do this by the DOZENS. Don’t take NO for an answer. Enough of this BS naby pamby clap-trap. SOMEONE is responsible for all this crap & the CONSTANT ASSAULTS. Make them PAY. FIND them, and the 30-40 something ‘grown -up frat boys’ who constantly enable this crap, this harrassment. It may take years, but HUNT THEM YOU MUST! Do it for yourself. Do it for your sisters, do it for future generations. BUT DO IT!!!!

    Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’

  214. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 6:44 am |

    It’s untrue that the Flickr public photos lack copyright protection. Flickr, in accordance with the Berne Convention, automatically applies a copyright notice to all uploaded photos. The default level, IIRC, is “all rights reserved.” You have the ability to change that yourself to a lower level of protection as defined by Creative Commons. But if you haven’t changed it*, it will default to the strongest level. Jill is correct that those who ran the T14 contest violated her copyright by posting the photos without her explicit permission and that they refused to honor the copyright when specifically requested to do so.

    WRT people posting copyrighted photos on AutoAdmit, question for the lawyers in the house. Since Ciolli and Cohen prevent you from being able to take recourse against the violators by providing them with pseudonyms and not verifying and keeping information on their posters’ identities, would they then become liable for the copyright violation by refusing to remove the thread when requested (I realize that they did remove the T14 thread eventually, but I don’t think this is the first time someone’s photos have been posted directly to AutoAdmit without proper permission). Would their hosting service be required to shut them down if notified they were allowing publication of copyrighted material and not enforcing its removal upon request?

    *You can change this as the default setting for all future photos to be uploaded or on a photo by photo basis. You can also change settings to allow no one, family only, friends and family only, or anyone to download or print your photos. The only thing that the download feature will prevent is a link to the “Download This” feature of Flickr. They can’t stop right-click “Save Image As” downloading.

  215. Kevin Wolf
    Kevin Wolf March 8, 2007 at 7:21 am |

    Followed the link from over at Shakespeare’s Sister. This is disgusting. The behavior of these “men” is revolting.

    If there’s any action you can take against them, please do. Best of luck.

  216. Links for 03-08-2007 |  *
    Links for 03-08-2007 | * March 8, 2007 at 7:22 am |

    [...] . And while I’m sure the majority of them are great, capable and bright individuals, some are the exact opposite with too much time [...]

  217. Monkey
    Monkey March 8, 2007 at 8:12 am |

    Came here from feministing – am outraged – that is completely despicable.

  218. Slashdot, just when I love you, you always find a way to make me sad.  at  PunkAssBlog.com

    [...] gular /. commenters could ignore that. I wrote an Anonymous Coward comment that linked to Jill’s piece, but it got lost somewhere and it may or may [...]

  219. atheist
    atheist March 8, 2007 at 8:35 am |

    What a buch of trash those guys, and Ann Althouse, are. They really should be shot.

  220. Blog Against Sexism « MilbyDaniel
    Blog Against Sexism « MilbyDaniel March 8, 2007 at 8:46 am |

    [...] rs have aligned: I have been catching up on the LWord (I’m on season 2), I just read Jill’s amazing and brave post about the sexist law schoo [...]

  221. atheist
    atheist March 8, 2007 at 8:47 am |

    I hope someone uses this example, and other ones mentioned in the comments, as a way of shutting down the site and ones like it. Apparently online communities of this type can encourage and enable some of the worst, most packish, behavior in people. From reading this example, it seems like there seriously needs to be either a branch of law enforcement constantly monitoring sites like this, or some other recourse to law.

    I do not understand how this Althouse character can defend these creeps. She doesn’t sound normal herself. Does she normally say thing that are this uncaring and stupid?

    I love the blogs, but, this sure brings out the dark possibilities of online communities.

  222. liss
    liss March 8, 2007 at 8:49 am |

    i got tears of frustration just reading this post. i never thought i’d actually sign off on a comment with something as corny as “in solidarity”, but this issue definitely calls for it, because that’s how i feel.

    in solidarity!

  223. ginmar
    ginmar March 8, 2007 at 9:13 am |

    And I guess the question of how some lawyers go after rape victims so viciously is solved: it’s because they started by going after women in law school the same way.

  224. sijeka
    sijeka March 8, 2007 at 9:20 am |

    Jill – sorry to hear about this awful story. I second everyone who’s been urging the women concerned to seek out legal action if at all possible.

    Did someone say class action? WORD.

  225. Mike
    Mike March 8, 2007 at 9:24 am |

    As a guy, let me just say that these guys are assholes, plain and simple. There is no excuse for their idiotic and hurtful behavior, none at all. You’d think that law students, who presumably have some intelligence, would know better. Frankly, if this is the way they act, I wouldn’t want them working as attorneys (or god forbid) judges some day. :(

    Mike
    http://shapetest.com

  226. Blog of the Moderate Left » Sere
    Blog of the Moderate Left » Sere March 8, 2007 at 9:36 am |

    [...] that female law students are being cyberstalked by a bunch of male law students, including Jill from Feministe.  I’d say my dismay o [...]

  227. Frumious B
    Frumious B March 8, 2007 at 9:37 am |

    Jill- for your 4000 pics that you don’t want to lose – have you looked into an external harddrive? They are available with hundreds of Gigs these days. If you keep your eye on weekly flyers from BestBuy and similar places, you can find them for massive discounts.

  228. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 9:39 am |

    I have posted on autoadmit. I in no way defend the ignorant stuff people write there, but I don’t think the posters you quoted represent all the posters there.

    also part of your column struck me as inaccurate

    Sure, Jarret Cohen, you deserve a fucking gold star for finally deciding to stop being an asshole. This is male entitlement in a nutshell: He thinks he can do whatever he damn well pleases, even if it has significant negative effects on the lives of several women, and then, when backed into a corner and pressured to behave like semi-decent human being, he thinks he deserves a golden star. How special.

    As for women “inviting attention” by posting their pictures online just like millions of other people, what else does that sound like to you? You knew what you were doing when you posted that picture/left the house in that outfit/went out to that bar/drank that beer/walked down that street/went to that party/came over to his house. What did you expect?

    Different context, same conclusion: When boys behave badly, blame the bitches.

    When you put yourself out in the public sphere you are giving people the right to respond. you may disagree with the the content or form of their response, which is your right as well, but that is the nature of public discourse. I’m an not saying you “invited attention” but when you provide the public with information about yourself, whether it be comments or pictures, the public is allowed to use and respond to that information however they want (aside from illegal actions). I agree that their response was ignorant, idiotic and ugly. however, they are being idiotic, ignorant, and ugly with information in the public sphere.

    I also don’t understand your comment about “male entitlement” in this context. It struck me as misplaced. this situation did revolve around judgment of women’s appearance, which obviously is connected to gender issues, but the reason for Jarret Cohen’s action are not.

  229. atheist
    atheist March 8, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    I also find it telling that the trolls on this thread try to attack Jill by attacking Feminist theory. They don’t seem to understand that, even outside of a “Feminist outlook”, what those trash tried to do is totally wrong.

  230. ahunt
    ahunt March 8, 2007 at 9:53 am |

    Wow, I’m late out the door this morning, but it is heartening to learn that there may be avenues of redress that could be pursued. The double bind certainly exists, and Jill is indeed damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.

    But I think that this issue is important enough to pursue, for my (grand)daughters and all women. Dunno what would be entailed, but if a fund is called for here. I got a few extra bucks I could contribute.

  231. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 10:04 am |

    Eat… AIDS? One finds wittier repartée over at 4chan, and that’s saying something. (Hell, 4chan even has stricter rules about posting contact information, and it’s been called the toilet of the internet, with good reason.) See, this is what happens when you give people anonymity. Shame, shame, shame on the board for giving these tools even the faintest sheen of legitimacy.

    I sincerely hope they suffer the same trouble getting a job that their victims did.

  232. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 10:10 am |

    And I am reminded why I didn’t go to a (second-tier) law school…I met too many fucking asshole male law students.

    My general experience with people who want to be librarians, however, has been pretty good.

  233. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 8, 2007 at 10:12 am |

    Jill:

    IANAL but I know a good deal about legal action against websites. AutoAdmit is certainly owed a Cease & Desist letter about the photos.

    DNS records reveal that AutoAdmit is hosted by http://www.servint.net/. They are very high-volume, so they probably have a dedicated server.
    Their Terms of Service are here:
    http://www.servint.net/contact/tos.php
    and their Acceptable Use Policies are here:
    http://www.servint.net/contact/aup.php

    I hope you hang them out to dry. Nonviolently.

  234. kcb
    kcb March 8, 2007 at 10:22 am |

    And I guess the question of how some lawyers go after rape victims so viciously is solved: it’s because they started by going after women in law school the same way.

    Spot on, ginmar. I always thought lawyers like that were just being attack dogs for their own clients, but the idea that they’re uncorking their own hatred makes an awful lot of sense. Ick.

  235. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 10:26 am |

    And I guess the question of how some lawyers go after rape victims so viciously is solved: it’s because they started by going after women in law school the same way.

    Spot on, ginmar. I always thought lawyers like that were just being attack dogs for their own clients, but the idea that they’re uncorking their own hatred makes an awful lot of sense. Ick.

    perhaps lawyers go after rape victims because thye have to based on their responsibilities and duties owed to their clients

  236. JJR
    JJR March 8, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    I think we deserve a golden star for what we did,” Cohen said.”

    What he deserves is a swift kick in the ass with a steel-toed boot. If something similar happened to him he’d be crying like a baby about how his rights had been abused and how he was a “victim”.

    Jarret Cohen, you’re an asshole. A complete and total asshole.

    James R.
    http://www.quicktrivia.com

  237. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 10:46 am |

    Katie #235: Yes, we are indeed made of concentrated awesome. Maybe it has something to do with the phrase “hotshot librarian” failing to enter the popular lexicon.

  238. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 10:49 am |

    Mogg #239, perhaps you can then explain that when some guy gets mugged, the mugger’s lawyers don’t attempt to tell the jury that the guy was asking for it. Or that when some guy gets pickpocketed, the pickpocket’s lawyers don’t tell the guy that he should have just left his wallet home–or better yet, just stayed home where it’s safe–if he didn’t want to get it nicked.

  239. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    Oh, and I should add, why don’t they tell black folks who get beat up by skinheads that they really shouldn’t be so uppity? I mean, don’t they have a legal responsibilty and duty to represent their clients’ interests?

  240. Fraser
    Fraser March 8, 2007 at 10:57 am |

    Stories like this make me glad I don’t have the power to strike people dead by thinking, because I’d be awfully tempted to use it.

    Sorry you have to put up with this crap, Jill.

    Veering OT for the second, I wonder, not for the first time, why people think that all-male classes will be serious, scholarly schoolrooms where everyone’s focused because there are no girls around to distract them.

  241. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 8, 2007 at 11:03 am |

    Dan:

    I’m going to assume you’re a typical lawyer in your knowledge of how life online works, and give you & your cohorts some insights from someone who saw the online wheel invented (even if I didn’t personally help).

    he privately hosted a forum that resembled the old Princeton Review site that people had liked. I don’t think that gives him the responsibility of wrangling a bunch of people who are supposed to be adults.

    Actually, it does. If you host (=pay for and thus have some legal responsibility for) a forum, you have responsibility to see that it is moderated or patrolled. Clearly he *must* do some policing and filtering, or the boards would be filled with spam.

    From a distance, I don’t know if AutoAdmit has too few moderators or if the mods just aren’t very good. It’s not uncommon for a situation like this (the technical term is “wank”) to develop when mods to get in way over their heads, refuse to do the necessary work but be unable to step away and let someone else take over.

    If young lawyers & law students find anonymous boards like this useful, someone needs to actually *work* at them — which means that someone has to actually care. Oddly enough, I see people in TV fandom do the work necessary to maintain civil anonymous communities all the time — it’s only in law, which is supposed to be part of “Real Life”, that no-one seems to be interested in keeping the excrement out of the dining room.

  242. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    grendelkhan because those are different crimes, with different elements. obviously the same defenses don’t apply to all crimes.

    usually the main issue concerning a rape case is consent. if someone is accused of rape, their lawyer, if the defensive is legally ethical, has a duty to try to show that there was consent. also in rape cases there are few is no witnesses to the crime, so casting doubt of the credibility on the alleged victim is also necessary. its necessary for the values at the base of the legal system, that everyone gets a strong and fair defense.

    I would like some concrete evidence of lawyers telling a jury that and allege rape victim should have just stayed home where they know they would safe.

  243. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:13 am | *

    I would like some concrete evidence of lawyers telling a jury that and allege rape victim should have just stayed home where they know they would safe.

    You’re not in a position to demand anything. You also have a tenuous grasp on the rules of evidence and what’s admissible.

  244. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 11:18 am |

    Posting pictures in a beauty contest is not “discourse.”

    If they were responding to something that I wrote, then this argument would make sense. But they weren’t. They were posting pictures of law school women. That isn’t a response, it isn’t public discourse, it’s just nastiness.

    its not discourse in the sense of a back and forth conversation, but it is in the sense that you put information into the public sphere and they used that information. sure they used that information in a superfical, immature, and ugly manner, but all the same they used information available to the public. if it turns out what they did was illegal than I’m all for you or anyone else enforcing your rights. I also support your right to voice your opinion on their actions. I just understand that anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it.

  245. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 11:22 am |

    You’re not in a position to demand anything.

    wtf? someone imply this in a counterargument and I asked for a basis.

    You also have a tenuous grasp on the rules of evidence and what’s admissible.

    I’ve was talking in generalities. how would you have any idea about my grasp on the rules of evidence?

  246. The Fool
    The Fool March 8, 2007 at 11:27 am |

    Based on the commentary I’ve caught on several blogs I assumed Jill actually was at least somewhat fat and ugly. But I just looked at some pictures and she clearly is neither. Jill is actually pretty hot! The fact that she is so far from being fat and ugly strongly suggests that some of those little law school wanker boys are suffering from sour grapes syndrome.

  247. ellenbrenna
    ellenbrenna March 8, 2007 at 11:30 am |

    What continues to blow my mind is that they do not understand the difference between what a woman chooses to do with her own pictures and personal information and what they decide to do with her pictures and personal information over her objections.

    They are going to argue for a living, yes? Make fine distinctions that will mean the difference between their clients winning or losing millions of dollars? And yet they cannot grasp the concept that another person’s property does not belong to them to use as they see fit.

  248. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:31 am | *

    how would you have any idea about my grasp on the rules of evidence?

    Because you might possibly have realized that there exist rape shield laws that prevent the admission of the sexual history of the victim unless a door has been opened (i.e., other men’s DNA was found on the victim, and that is admissible to show that someone else caused the injuries).

    You also seem to think that a defense of consent is opening the door to the victim’s sexual history, which it is not. Even the victim’s sexual history with this particular accused is not relevant to show consent this time.

  249. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 11:36 am |

    Because you might possibly have realized that there exist rape shield laws that prevent the admission of the sexual history of the victim unless a door has been opened (i.e., other men’s DNA was found on the victim, and that is admissible to show that someone else caused the injuries).

    You also seem to think that a defense of consent is opening the door to the victim’s sexual history, which it is not. Even the victim’s sexual history with this particular accused is not relevant to show consent this time.

    I never even mentioned the sexual history of the alleged victim, let alone “opening the door” to allow it to brought up. i really have no idea where your comments are coming from

  250. Blue Buddha
    Blue Buddha March 8, 2007 at 11:37 am |

    **UPDATE 2: They’ve moved from posting one woman’s email address to posting another’s full name, email address, and home phone number.

    On most boards this would be an instant ban for the user(s) who posted/propagated the personal information and deletion of those posts. But something tells me that AutoAdmit is not like most boards.

  251. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 11:39 am |

    Moog #247:

    because those are different crimes, with different elements. obviously the same defenses don’t apply to all crimes.

    “She was asking for it, going out of the house at night” is a defense against rape? What country are you from? Please tell me, so I can never, ever visit it.

    #249:

    I just understand that anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it.

    Please nick some photos from the AP, or a newspaper story, or some broadcasted TV, or copy a DVD you rented at Blockbuster, and try to sell them with ads for how great Moog is mixed in. Make sure you send notes to the AP and the MPAA to explain what you’re doing. Enjoy explaining your novel legal theory to the legions of lawyers which will appear at your doorstep.

  252. Laurie
    Laurie March 8, 2007 at 11:41 am |

    Mogg:
    Defense attorneys in rape cases routinely bring up facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with consent. Like what the plaintiff was wearing at the time of the crime. Whether she had been drinking alcohol. Her past sexual history. Shit like that. One of the reasons MORE rapes are not prosecuted is because a woman who has been traumatized by the rape itself does not want to have her entire life raked over the coals by some defense attorney — including all the bits that are irrelevent.

    It can also be pointed out that casting doubt on whether someone consented to an act or not does not require dragging their reputation through the half-rotted manure of innuendo that most defense lawyers use to “defend” their clients. “Reasonable doubt”, I believe, is still the standard. Like, reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given or not. NOT “well, she was wearing a short skirt and half in the bag, so I figured she wanted it”.

    Honestly — read some background. It’s not like this discussion doesn’t come up frequently enough. Hell, watch the news when there is a high profile rape case being reported. Every stinkin’ thing the woman does is analyzed to death, including “well, why was she at the place she was? Didn’t she realize the risks?” The implication that we’d all be safer if we wore head to toe covering garments and just stayed inside and never got near any men we didn’t already know is DEAFENING. As if that would even help.

    In THIS case, Jill did NOT give her consent for the pictures to be used in the manner there were used. She ASKED that they be taken down, and was DENIED that courtesy. The fact that they are automagically copyrighted the second she took them drags this into a legal sphere quite handily, not to mention the fact that these idiots were encouraging readers to basically stalk the women whose pictures were on the “board”. Wanna debate consent on this one?

  253. Catherine Martell
    Catherine Martell March 8, 2007 at 11:45 am |

    Mogg, you’re getting whooped. Badly. It’s hilarious to watch, mind, so please continue to say cretinously stupid things and allow zuzu and Jill to run rings around you.

    Or you could scrape together the tattered remnants that used to be your dignity and make yourself a lovely golden star out of them. I hear that’s what all the chumps are doing these days.

  254. Gwen
    Gwen March 8, 2007 at 11:55 am |

    if it turns out what they did was illegal than I’m all for you or anyone else enforcing your rights. I also support your right to voice your opinion on their actions. I just understand that anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it.

    Then what exactly is your problem? Jill and her commentors are criticising these ugly and immature actions. They’re also considering possible legal remedies Jill may have. If you agree with both those aims, what are you argument here? The ‘principle’ that “anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it” is only relevant to illegality, which you say you’re not contesting is a possibility – though, on that, have you ever heard of copyright law? There’s no such principle. So do you have an aim here, other than to defend the vital role of attorneys in “going after” alleged rape victims?

  255. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 11:59 am |

    grendelkhan, I have already stated that anything which is illegal is not acceptable, which includes copyright violations.

    Laurie

    i think I understand the points you are making and I agree with a lot of it. while some of the questions you bring up are discussed in the media, i just don’t know how much could or would get into the courtroom. specifically things like “well, she was wearing a short skirt and half in the bag, so I figured she wanted “. which is why I asked for specific things actually admitted. i thought it would be more fruitful.

    again, if jill’s pictures were copyrighted, then she should have those rights respected.

  256. abyss2hope
    abyss2hope March 8, 2007 at 12:02 pm |

    (45):But blaming a website that allows people to share their opinions, as disgusting as they may be, isnt the best response.

    I disagree. This is more than people sharing their opinions, it is allowing people — law students no less — to commit sexual harassment on an ongoing basis and to encourage people to stalk women as part of that harassment and to post the evidence of this stalking.

    The fact that the opinions aren’t limited to non-violent actions against female law students should make the website owner liable for any harm that comes to women mentioned on that web site — either directly through assault or loss of a job or indirectly through pain and suffering.

    What this tells me about those who participate or don’t oppose these “disgusting” opinions is that they are trying to undermine their competition because their own abilities are substandard. If you got what you need to succeed you don’t have to attack any of your peers or support those who do.

    Frankly, when law firms interview lawyers, they should make their potential hirees sign a legal statement that they have never stalked, sexually or verbally harassed anyone, not even anonymously. The potential liability issues are much greater if they hire someone who will anonymously harass others than if they hire someone who has been harassed and demeaned.

  257. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 12:03 pm |

    Mogg, you’re getting whooped. Badly. It’s hilarious to watch, mind, so please continue to say cretinously stupid things and allow zuzu and Jill to run rings around you.

    zuzu made a few response that were irrelevant to the substance of my posts she was responding to. Jill made a few good responses which I’ve responded to inkind.

    i’m not sure were you are coming from

  258. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 12:04 pm |

    I just understand that anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it.

    And you are mistaken, because photographs are copyrighted at the time taken. They remain under the control of the person who created them. If you post someone else’s copyrighted work without their express permission, you have violated his/her copyright.

    This has been covered multiple times previously in the comment thread.

  259. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager March 8, 2007 at 12:08 pm |

    From the Terms of Service that Doctor Science linked to upthread.

    Unauthorized transmission or storage of any information, data or materials in violation of any law or regulation of the United States, any state thereof or the Customer’s business location is expressly prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, material which is copyrighted or protected by trade secret.

    Since all pictures are copyrighted by default, the pictures stolen from Flickr and elsewhere would fall under this category.

    From the ServInt Acceptable Use policies, which people agree to follow by following the ToS:

    6. Compliance with all Laws

    Customer agrees to use the service in a manner consistent with any and all applicable laws and regulations of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Customer’s locality. Reproduction or transmission of any material in violation of any local, state, U.S., or international law or regulation is prohibited. The Customer agrees that any material to be reproduced or transmitted on ServInt’s service through Customer ‘s account(s) does not violate or infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, statutory, common law or proprietary rights of others, or contain anything obscene, libelous or threatening. Software intended to facilitate any such violations or infringements may not be stored on ServInt. The Customer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless ServInt from and against any claims, liabilities and expenses, including attorney fees, resulting from any Customer’s use of the ServInt service or a Customer’s account in an unlawful manner or otherwise in violation of or contrary to the Customer’s Agreement with ServInt or ServInt’s Acceptable Use Policies. At ServInt’s discretion, ServInt may revoke any Customer’s access to ServInt services or accounts for inappropriate usage.

    6.1

    Customer represents and warrants to ServInt that Customer owns or otherwise has the right to display and disseminate the information and content provided on the Customer’s Internet page, and that such information and content does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of any third party. Customer represents and warrants that it has obtained, and currently has, any and all grants of rights from third parties which may be required to display text, graphics or other materials in the information contained on Customer’s Internet page.

    Again the pictures fall within this category.

    7. Unacceptable Conduct

    The following types of conduct are grounds for immediate suspension of service pending investigation by ServInt and may result in termination of the account(s) the investigation determines to have originated or transmitted these types of traffic.

    [....]

    (d) Continued harassment of other individuals on the Internet after being asked to stop by those individuals and/or by ServInt.

    Given that Jill and others asked them to remove them from the content, and they didn’t, it would seem like there is a good cause of ServInt to terminate their account.

  260. Anacher Forester
    Anacher Forester March 8, 2007 at 12:14 pm |

    “All of this negative stereotyping about lawyers by the readers of this blog is just as bad as the negative stereotyping about women and minorities.”

    I beg to differ. If the shoe fits, you can’t acquit.

    1. A wealth of anecdotal and empirical evidence encourages this rampant negative stereotyping of lawyers. Exhibit A: the shameful sexist, racist and sociopathic behavior documented in the above AutoAdmit excerpts.

    2. In sheer volume there are (thankfully) exponentially fewer lawyers than there are women and minorities. Therefore there can only exponentially less opportunities for barrister-directed bigotry.

    3. While I loathe bigotry in all forms, there is something especially insipid when hatefulness is expressed toward someone because of something they can’t or shouldn’t unwillingly change i.e. sex/race/creed as opposed to something they can like a red shirt or their occupation in this case lawyering.+

    +I may or may not actually subscribe to some or all of the views of this post. Any and all offended are advised to contact my attorney directly.

    AF

  261. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm |

    atheist said:

    I do not understand how this Althouse character can defend these creeps. She doesn’t sound normal herself. Does she normally say thing that are this uncaring and stupid?

    It’s what she lives for. You can find many sterling examples mocked at Pandagon.

    She’s also a Full Professor at the University of Wisconsin law school.

  262. Anacher Forester
    Anacher Forester March 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm |

    More seriously…

    These future **shudder** lawyers need to get their noses out of their books once in a while and rejoin the human race. All work and no play makes Jack a depraved, morally bankrupt barrister whiling away the hours via sadistic fantasies of rape and what have you. Calling these guys sickos and creeps could very well be construed as libelous…to real sickos and creeps. Any attempt to explain away, defend or otherwise diminish the extent of their depravity is inexcusable.

    It takes a particularly stupid law student not to realize that making threats of serious bodily harm over the internet could be traced back to them through their IP address or other means. This could be categorized as a “Terroristic Threat” for communicating to another with purpose to terrorize (think along the lines of domestic abuse not the “GWOT”). Under these conditions these budding legal eagles could be subject to Federal and State charges regardless whether or not the defendant had the intent or capability of committing the specified offense. Under certain circumstances, schools and the web site host and/or owner may be liable.

    I can’t think of a faster way to end your legal career that to get popped for making terroristic threats to a fellow law student.

    AF

  263. Deborah
    Deborah March 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm |

    I don’t have anything substantive to add, a lot of people have said good things (and trolls have said not good things).

    I just stopped in to say I am deeply sorry you’ve endured this terrible experience. You can be proud of yourself for surviving it with the dignity and grace and poise you’ve shown; the chutzpah to post about it, knowing you’d reinvigorate the trolls, is remarkable. Next time I need a lawyer, I’m gonna check if you’ve passed your bar yet (I mean, if my brother isn’t available).

  264. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm |

    Catherine Martell #258: Sssh! Don’t shoo him away; this is kind of fun.

    (Also, Mogg: sorry about the name thing. I could have sworn I read ‘Moog’. No petty name-calling was intended.)

  265. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 12:18 pm |

    while some of the questions you bring up are discussed in the media, i just don’t know how much could or would get into the courtroom. specifically things like “well, she was wearing a short skirt and half in the bag, so I figured she wanted “. which is why I asked for specific things actually admitted. i thought it would be more fruitful.

    Well, there is the story that former New York prosecutor Linda Fairstein tells of a rape case she prosecuted where the defense claimed that the victim was secretly working as a prostitute and the rapist was a client. As proof, held up the leopard-print panties she was wearing the day she was raped and basically said that no respectable woman would wear panties like that.

    It didn’t work — the guy was convicted — but that kind of ploy is pretty common.

  266. oudemia
    oudemia March 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm |

    This was, thankfully, not related to a rape case, but a defense attorney once implied that I was having sex with his client. The case? Dude was caught inside my car with a smashed in window and prying out the stereo with a screwdriver. The argument was this fellow was my boyfriend and I gave him permission. You know, like one does for one’s boyfriend.

    (This was in a probable cause hearing, and such a lame, pathetic not-even-hail-mary that I don’t even know why she (yes, she), the defense attorney, bothered.)

  267. oudemia
    oudemia March 8, 2007 at 12:25 pm |

    And, obvs., that first sentence “his” should be “her” — sheesh!

  268. celticfeminist
    celticfeminist March 8, 2007 at 12:27 pm |

    Jaysus on a pogo stick, this is disturbing, indefensible shit. I’m sorry you’re going through all of that. I don’t know what it is about anonymity that makes people sink to such loathsome and frightening spewing of hatred, but it’s fucking scary. And depressing, because in my own rose-colored way, I’d like to be able to believe people who think like that are a tiny minority. Things like that only serve to reinforce my knowledge and cynicism that it’s, in reality, a much larger number of people.

    I’m sure it’s been mentioned before, but you can always filter your Flickr photos to be available to only friends and/or family.

    That said, in a sane world, much like going out wearing what you like where you like, you should be able to post what you want where you want without someone(s) thinking it gives them the right to harass/stalk/violate you in any way. I … *shudder* I have no real words for the vileness of it all.

  269. Stacy
    Stacy March 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm |

    I’m so sorry that this happened to you. It is sickening. I hope they all get prosecuted and slapped with gigantic fines and thrown in jail.

  270. Fraser
    Fraser March 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm |

    In a rape case here in Florida a few years back, the jurors said the victim wearing a lace skirt and no underwear convinced them she’d gone out that night looking for sex. So just because the guy stabbed her nine times to get her to give it to him was no reason to convict him.

  271. thinking girl
    thinking girl March 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm |

    holy shit Jill – that is really scary. I’m so sorry that you and the ohter girls who’ve been targeted are going through this. And people wonder why some women are afraid of men – this kind of campaign is extremely hostile (the understatement of the year).

  272. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 12:39 pm | *

    In a rape case here in Florida a few years back, the jurors said the victim wearing a lace skirt and no underwear convinced them she’d gone out that night looking for sex. So just because the guy stabbed her nine times to get her to give it to him was no reason to convict him.

    Remember in the Mike Tyson rape case, where the defense argued that the victim had consented because she’d removed an undergarment in the bathroom? That “undergarment” was a pantiliner.

    When I was at UM a dozen or so years ago, a woman was raped behind a dorm at 7 at night. She’d been getting her laundry out of her car. The head of campus security said she shouldn’t have been doing that.

  273. Weeze
    Weeze March 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm |

    Another anecdote along the lines of Oudemia’s: about fifteen years ago I got raped by a stranger who broke into my apartment. Woke up at four in the morning to find him on top of me. The police officer who came to take my report the next day– with a female advocate in tow, no less– tried to get me to admit that the rapist was an ex-boyfriend of mine.

  274. abyss2hope
    abyss2hope March 8, 2007 at 12:44 pm |

    Evil Male Oppresser:It doesn’t occur to the feminst mind (from my perspective) that the hate they describe is part of a cause and effect relationship. Maybe these men have learned to hate women as a reaction to the years of hatred and disrespect they have received from women.

    Or maybe men who treat women like objects don’t get the positive response they’d hoped for and use that negative response to justify treating women worse. “When I pinned her down and tried to strip her naked, she bit me! Horrid, violent women! Now I knock ‘em out first!”

  275. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    Attorney Lidia Stiglich in Berkeley has handled similar matters of online defamation of this kind and would probably help you for free if you explained what was going on.

  276. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    In a rape case here in Florida a few years back, the jurors said the victim wearing a lace skirt and no underwear convinced them she’d gone out that night looking for sex. So just because the guy stabbed her nine times to get her to give it to him was no reason to convict him.

    There is so much frightening about that. First, the fact that he stabbed her 9 times wasn’t an indication to the jury that she didn’t consent. Please tell me he was at least convicted on an attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon charge.

    Second, the thing is she might have gone out that night hoping to have sex with someone. It infuriates me to no degree that this means to so many people not “someone she chose to have sex with” but “any guy that decided he wanted to have sex with her.”

    *headdesk*

  277. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 12:47 pm |

    Oh argh, there should be a “small” between “no” and “degree” in my previous comment.

  278. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 8, 2007 at 12:53 pm |

    It is cause for deletion when the information is about male attorneys, or any of the dudes who post on the board. When it’s about random law school women, it’s not. Go figure.

    The information on the SullCrom attorney was not deleted by the site owner, it was deleted by the douchebag who originally posted it (the same person responsible for the deplorable T14 contest). And the anti-outing policy extends to all posters, of whom a substantial number are women.

  279. ColdWarKids
    ColdWarKids March 8, 2007 at 1:01 pm |

    Hi Jill,

    Thank you for speaking out about this. I am a student at Columbia Law, and the discourse on XOXO terrifies me. Am I going to school with these people?
    Anyways, since the most recent drama happend over the T14 girls I have been checking the site a bit more. It seems like there are tons of posts that are directed at women (of course there are tons of racist ones as well).
    The site makes me feel helpless and angry…but are we helpless?
    Is there anything that can be done? I would certainly like to try.
    Anyways,
    again, thank you for speaking out about this, and if you have any interest in trying to get something organized about this, email me.

  280. Ron O
    Ron O March 8, 2007 at 1:02 pm |

    Jill I have nothing practical to add, but I am so sorry this has happened to you. If you ever need a body in Chicago to help you take action against these people, I’d be happy to lend a hand.

  281. Bucky Badger
    Bucky Badger March 8, 2007 at 1:04 pm |

    I’m unfortunate enough to go to the law school at which Ann Althouse is a professor. Needless to say, the students don’t like her very much.

  282. bmc90
    bmc90 March 8, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    I do think the law schools and state bar associations should step in. When you ignore this stuff early in someone’s career, it comes back to haunt the profession later, and the state’s monopoly on law licenses gives states the obligation to protect the public by keeping psychos out of the bar. A lawyer in my state was just disbarred for sexually assulting a client and had a history of sexual harassment. Another is doing time (he did get off death row) for killing a girlfriend and had a history or sexual harassment (that one got national media attention). One of my law school classmates took out a hit on her husband and a law school secretary while I was there. And of course, a decade earlier and I would have been Ted Bundy’s classmate. You cannot put the unhinged in positions of trust like this. Law schools whose students appear to be involved and state bars can take measures to identify the perps, and some of them should clearly be kicked out of school and not allowed to sit for any state’s bar exam. You can’t sit for a year in one state if you cheat on one exam in law school; why should you be able to sit if you are inciting rape?. At the very least, all state boards of bar examiners should be provided with the identity of these people so they can make their own decisions about admitting them. These people could be entrusted with prosecuting sex crimes, women who have been abused who are seeking restraining orders could be their client, children could be their clients – the most vunerable people in society. Character means somethng when the state decides how to use it’s monopoly on law licenses – otherwise we might as well just let anyone sit for the bar and practice if they can pass, regarless of whether they go to law school. When I was interviewed and investigated to be admitted to the bars of 2 states, the examiner I has happened to be the state’s AG. I can assure you it would have been very uncomfortable to have to explain these posts. That’s what I hope those guys have to look forward to.

  283. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 1:12 pm |

    Jill, who you gonna believe–him, or your lyin’ eyes?

  284. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm |

    Then how come I can find the real names and contact information of several of the women in the contest on AutoAdmit?

    The outing policy applies to posters not random individuals. If you’re woman enough to join the fray, your information might be retroactively removed.

  285. Interested Observer
    Interested Observer March 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm |

    Get someone to stalk these guys and take pictures of them in uncomfortable circumstances. If they are so worried about hiding behind screen names and spending time degrading women and stalking I doubt they would appreciate that. Start a site about “male chauvanist pigs who can’t get a woman in bed so spend all their time projecting violent fantasies online” and show pictures of these cowardly assholes so we can all make fun of them. I bet most of them are really insecure about there self image and would not like having themselves under a spotlight, along with their full name etc. Oh and get a big can of mace and a licensed handgun, and concealed weapons permit.

  286. Ryan
    Ryan March 8, 2007 at 1:34 pm |

    Ever notice how people who feel poorly about themselves are the most critical of other people? A person can have low self-esteem, but judge others negatively in order to keep a huge ego. Those people have a hard time connecting with other people, but they still want attention, so their behavior becomes reaction seeking.

    That describes 90% of the dynamics at play on xoxo. When you get a bunch of people like that together, it becomes a competition to see who can cut everyone else down the most, doing it in the most offensive, outrageous way.

    They don’t care about you. You’re just a topic they can use as fodder to entertain and insult each other. They deploy racist and sexist language because it’s the most provocative. Xoxo is a fantasy playground where negative people take turns pissing on each other. Why dignify that with attention?

  287. Catherine Martell
    Catherine Martell March 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm |

    # 271 grendelkhan:

    Sssh! Don’t shoo him away; this is kind of fun.

    Sorry! It didn’t work anyhow – he actually responded to me (no 264) in abject confusion, poor chap. It must be scary being in this nasty place with all the bitey women who won’t defer to his masterful pronouncements.

    Loving your work, especially no 242, which I may have to plagiarise often.

    More generally: it seems there are an awful lot of us here who would be prepared to contribute time, money and contacts to do something about this. It doesn’t have to end here…

  288. StarDragon The Canadian
    StarDragon The Canadian March 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm |

    Solidarity to you!
    Happy IWD!

  289. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm |

    he actually responded to me (no 264) in abject confusion, poor chap. It must be scary being in this nasty place with all the bitey women who won’t defer to his masterful pronouncements.

    i have no problem with “bitey women” and actually prefer them. I agree with and support most feminist ideals. I also wasn’t making masterful pronouncements, just stating my opinion and asking for specific examples of the types of occurrences people are using as a basis for their arguments.

  290. RKMK
    RKMK March 8, 2007 at 2:02 pm |

    Give’em hell, Jill. I’m Canadian, and paying off loans of my own, and I would be more than happy to contribute whatever I could to a fund (retaliatory website, lawsuit, whatever) to take these fuckers down.

  291. Morgan
    Morgan March 8, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    when feminism has run its course and things are more or less as they should be, I think that there will be nothing wrong with many types of objectification

    kind of an ironic post when a woman is complaining about being objectified. . .

  292. Tara
    Tara March 8, 2007 at 2:08 pm |

    Get someone to stalk these guys and take pictures of them in uncomfortable circumstances. If they are so worried about hiding behind screen names and spending time degrading women and stalking I doubt they would appreciate that. Start a site about “male chauvanist pigs who can’t get a woman in bed so spend all their time projecting violent fantasies online” and show pictures of these cowardly assholes so we can all make fun of them. I bet most of them are really insecure about there self image and would not like having themselves under a spotlight, along with their full name etc. Oh and get a big can of mace and a licensed handgun, and concealed weapons permit.

    I don’t think objectification works the same on men. This isn’t to say that men can’t be objectified; they are to some extent, especially in recent consumer advertising. But, it doesn’t come with the eqivalent of misogyny. Furthermore, it might be taken in the unintended way (e.g., as flattery).

  293. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 2:11 pm |

    The outing policy applies to posters not random individuals. If you’re woman enough to join the fray, your information might be retroactively removed.

    Wow, that’s big of you. “Hey, if we feel like it, we might remove your personal information that an anonymous poster put up. But probably not. So don’t go around having pictures on Flickr that anonymous assholes might want to post on our site, or you’ll probably be shit out of luck.”

    More than ever, this is coming across as a bunch of guys who find themselves threatened by these women on a professional level (“OMG that chick in my class might get the clerkship that I deserve — better post some nasty rumors about her!”)

  294. Jacob Wenger
    Jacob Wenger March 8, 2007 at 2:17 pm |

    Sigh.

    I want a third gender, so I don’t have to be identified with complete and utter freaking morons like this. You’re absolutely right, this is utter and complete crap (not the words I’d choose, but I’m trying to stay somewhat clean, and nothing is strong enough)

    I came across your story from another flickr persons stream. The only thing I can say, we’re not all (men) this freaking stupid and pathetic.

  295. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 2:17 pm |

    i just read Althouse blog and though it is snide and goes too far it does bring up a good point. Is there any actual evidence that anyone was denied employment because of autoadmit? and did any of the journalist covering the story raise the question as why an employer would not consider the source of the information they found on the internet?

  296. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm |

    Oh, and AutoAdmit Deity, if you think I’m going to let your comment through where you give the name of one of the women in the contest, you are sorely mistaken.

    Understandable. I’m simply trying to help others from using clownish outfits like Reputation Defender from taking their money and spreading more information about them. In fact, all of this attention from the WaPo story on down has brought much more undesirable attention and “google-permanent” links than little autoadmit ever could on its own.

    Lastly, your participation is requested here:
    http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7724184

  297. Tara
    Tara March 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm |

    All of this talk about women “inviting attention” on themselves for, gasp, having MySpace or Facebook pages reminds me of those articles about the Taliban, for example, and their leering contempt for any women simply living her life. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the attitudes of these male, living in the US bloggers and those of other patriarchal scumbags the world over. It’s only shocking because I haven’t heard that sentiment uttered so brazenly.

  298. Roy
    Roy March 8, 2007 at 2:22 pm |

    The outing policy applies to posters not random individuals. If you’re woman enough to join the fray, your information might be retroactively removed.

    Wow. Am I reading that right?

    So, the policy is: “We’re willing to protect the identities of the assholes who are willing to post sexist, racist, homophobic things and who are encouraging others to engage in stalking, and who make violent threats about rape, but not of the people they’re doing these things to.”

    Riiiight. That policy makes sense.

    Not at all blatantly stupid or offensive.

  299. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm |

    The outing policy applies to posters not random individuals. If you’re woman enough to join the fray, your information might be retroactively removed.

    I hope you’re saving every single statement like this…Remember, the folks who run sites like this are actually their own worst enemies. Eventually, I fear that someone on that site is actually going to do something criminal. I hope to the heavens that never happens, but the posting climate there could easily embolden someone of questionable mental status (and there are plenty of them at our nation’s law schools) to engage in a criminal act in order to reap the praise of his online buddies.

    If something like that were to happen, AutoAdmit could face significant and deserved exposure in a civil suit. Quotes like this, where removing personal information is tied to membership at the website, show a callousness that would be lost on neither judge nor jury.

    I really think some of these women have grounds for a civil suit for damages right now. With that comes subpoena power, meaning that AutoAdmit’s membership roll could be obtained and individual posters identified and marked as potential witnesses. I doubt anyone wanting to do this would have any trouble finding an attorney to do it gratis, either.

  300. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 2:27 pm |

    I really think some of these women have grounds for a civil suit for damages right now.

    what grounds are you referring to?

  301. Catherine Martell
    Catherine Martell March 8, 2007 at 2:28 pm |

    Mogg sez:

    I agree with and support most feminist ideals. I also wasn’t making masterful pronouncements, just stating my opinion and asking for specific examples of the types of occurrences people are using as a basis for their arguments.

    And yet you felt free to make what I would consider masterful pronouncements, entirely sans evidence or specific examples, on at least three occasions in the thread above:

    – copyright, privacy and the public sphere, 232

    – consent and credibility in rape cases, 247

    – public/private spheres again, 249

    So it’s fine for you to go around pontificating on what you believe to be copyright law, privacy law or rape law, and when posters call you on a weighty error in your assertions (zuzu 253), you dismiss their challenges as “irrelevant to the substance” (Mogg 264) of what you were saying.

    And yet, when someone makes the observation that female victims in rape cases quite often find that they are under pressure to defend their own behaviour – a phenomenon that is well known to feminists, but further than that has been extensively documented in the media and academic research* – you’re leaping up and down demanding that we all produce “concrete” evidence to back up one small and rather nitpicking part of that observation. One that, I would suggest, is “irrelevant to the substance” of the point overall.

    Bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

    *See, for example: “But she was unfaithful: benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations”, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Sept, 2002 by G. Tendayi Viki, Dominic Abrams. Available online.

  302. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 2:33 pm |

    The information posted is drawn from publicly-available databases such as these:

    http://www.yale.edu/oldYaleInfo/directory.html

    Are you guys really suggesting that NOT taking down posts with directory information is criminal?

  303. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm |

    what grounds are you referring to?

    Mogg, you seem to have some legal training (or, more likely, are in Law School)…be creative. Let’s say you’re hired by some of these women–they become your clients to whom you owe a duty. How would you counsel them? What measures would you take?

    What if you could demonstrate that a woman was denied a job due to false information posted about her on AutoAdmit, that AutoAdmit was aware of the postings, and that AutoAdmit was fully aware that it is regularly browsed by people making hiring decisions at major law firms (something I believe AutoAdmit actually brags about, but correct me if I’m wrong)?

    What if you could demonstrate that postings on AutoAdmit encouraged criminal behavior, that AutoAdmit was fully aware of those postings and in fact encouraged them, and that as a result several women suffered emotional distress from fearing for their safety?

    How would you proceed, then? Think about it. I’ll bet you could come up with others…

  304. Cat Faber
    Cat Faber March 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm |

    Thinking in terms of minimizing the damage to the women presently trying to get hired–would it be worthwhile to Googlebomb their names to a page that also referenced the Washington Post article, so that potential employers would realize that they didn’t enter the contest willingly but were in fact innocent victims?

    If the first thing potential employers saw while researching these women was an article about how female law students are being subjected to trash sex talk by wannabe stalkers, perhaps they would take the wannabe stalkers’ posts with a grain of salt.

  305. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 2:48 pm |

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it’s criminal. I’m quite sure it isn’t. It may well be against the terms of service of the message board’s hosting company, but that, as you know, is a matter of private contract.

    It is, however, particularly vile to post someone’s information without their consent. They consent to have their information posted in a law school directory. That doesn’t mean they have consented to have it published on a message board for the benefit of assholes discussing their “fuckability” and whether or not people ought to stalk them, take their pictures, and post them for further “discussion.” Or for any other reason, for that matter. Just as a matter of sheer decency, the information shouldn’t be posted. Legality != decency.

  306. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 2:49 pm |

    And that’s not even the policy. Like I commented above, I have joined in the fray and posted on their site, more than a year ago, when I saw that my information (full name, screen name, etc) was up there. It still hasn’t been removed.

    So in other words, they’re full of shit.

    I guess I was wrong about retroactive removal of poster’s information. If only you had joined earlier… You’d be more prestigious too!

  307. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 2:50 pm |

    314 Catherine Martell Says:

    And yet you felt free to make what I would consider masterful pronouncements, entirely sans evidence or specific examples, on at least three occasions in the thread above:

    – copyright, privacy and the public sphere, 232

    – consent and credibility in rape cases, 247

    – public/private spheres again, 249

    So it’s fine for you to go around pontificating on what you believe to be copyright law, privacy law or rape law, and when posters call you on a weighty error in your assertions (zuzu 253), you dismiss their challenges as “irrelevant to the substance” (Mogg 264) of what you were saying.

    i explained the confusion about the copyright issues. i was unaware that the actual pictures were copyrighted and admited my mistake, but when I was discussing things made public it was a general statement, including posts, comments, information. I have repeatedly stated that if anyone’s legal rights were infringed, that is unaccaptable.

    247 was a general statement as well. rape cases often deal with consent. it is an essential element. below is an actual rape statute

    “Rape.

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally has sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when:

    (1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;

    (2) the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; or

    (3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be given;

    commits rape, a Class B felony.

    (b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:

    (1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;

    (2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;

    (3) it results in serious bodily injury to a person other than a defendant;”

    i’m not sure how that is comparable when a few of the other posters were listing specific types of things said about a woman.

    ZuZu did not catch a weighty error in my assertions (zuzu 253), I never stated that sexual history would or should be used. zuzu then comes back with rape shield laws that only deal with sexual history. i don’t know how that is relevant or an error

    when someone makes the observation that female victims in rape cases quite often find that they are under pressure to defend their own behaviour

    i don’t deny this. I’m sure it happens. I was just questioning the manner in which some posters said it happens.

  308. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 2:52 pm |

    Mogg,

    Here are a few grounds they could sue on: 1) invasion of privacy (for false light invasion of privacy), 2) defamation (some of these women have been accused of being sexually promiscuous, which is per se defamatory, injuring someone in their business or profession is also per se defamatory–yes, not all states have kept the per se categories), 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (not based on merely offensive statements, but surely based on threatening ones), 4) copyright infringement.

    There are also anti-stalking laws in many states, although I am not sure whether there are civil remedies associated with them.

  309. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 2:55 pm |

    What if you could demonstrate that a woman was denied a job due to false information posted about her on AutoAdmit, that AutoAdmit was aware of the postings, and that AutoAdmit was fully aware that it is regularly browsed by people making hiring decisions at major law firms (something I believe AutoAdmit actually brags about, but correct me if I’m wrong)?

    Why would anyone want to work at a company staffed by people stupid enough to believe anything written on Autoadmit? Do hiring partners make decisions based on information written on bathroom stalls in the YLS mens room?

  310. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 2:58 pm |

    I’m really surprised that ekf’s comment (#159) hasn’t garnered more discussion. Why is everybody arguing over details about the legality of other people’s ideas when ekf presented such a potentially great one?

    What you and other women are being made to suffer is unconscionable, and it should really be dealt with by the top law firms, who should make an explicit policy that anyone known to post on that site will not get an offer, period.

    …risk management departments should see that the firm could be exposed to a lawsuit if they knew their servers were used to spread hate speech or engage in sexual harassment and did nothing about it…

    …firms would be best suited to making a bright line use of limiting access to the site…

    …perhaps the best thing to do would be to have friendly alums in as many AmLaw 100 firms route a copy of some of the more obviously EEOC-problematic posts to their risk management departments with a note about how the firm needs to be sure their summer associates do not participate in such behavior on the firm computers, preferably by adding the site to the firm’s list of blocked websites to avoid administrative hassle.
    It would at least be a start, and it would tip off major law firms about the site being Bad News. Smaller firms would follow suit by word of mouth.

    In the event that mode of activism appears too slapdash, another way to bring the issue to the attention of law firms’ risk management departments is to contact one of the legal malpractice insurance carriers and see what they think a law firm’s exposure might be if it knew its lawyers or summer clerks were posting hate speech on this website.

    If a journalist made [ALAS] aware of AutoAdmit and its possibilities for exposure, they may be very interested in getting that information to their member firms.

    …institutions can be valuable, because they are so risk averse. If they can be convinced that the type of behavior that goes on at AutoAdmit has the potential to cost them money, they will be highly motivated to minimize losses, especially when the fix is [easy]

  311. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 3:00 pm |

    Sickle Says: (316)

    What if you could demonstrate that a woman was denied a job due to false information posted about her on AutoAdmit, that AutoAdmit was aware of the postings, and that AutoAdmit was fully aware that it is regularly browsed by people making hiring decisions at major law firms (something I believe AutoAdmit actually brags about, but correct me if I’m wrong)?

    in that case there might be grounds, but I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that is the case.

  312. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 3:02 pm |

    AAD–Re: your 315–I think you raise an interesting question. I do not think that case law has yet settled the question of whether republicizing information that is in the public domain already could be actionable. I do recall hearing about a case where a young man who was “out” in college tried to sue when he was outed back home. He lost. But, if you disseminate publicly available information about X in the context of a conversation with Y where Y threatens to attack X’s person or property–I’m thinking there is some liability there. (I don’t know if joint tortfeasor liability goes as far as accomplice liability–but all the same.) So I don’t think that republicizing info. could be the sole basis for a cause of action (or a criminal prosecution) but I sure think it could be part of one.

  313. Nuno Vasco Saltão da Costa
    Nuno Vasco Saltão da Costa March 8, 2007 at 3:04 pm |

    You’re still too attached to your body… please, keep on burning some more bras, you’re not there, yet…

  314. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm |

    i don’t deny this. I’m sure it happens. I was just questioning the manner in which some posters said it happens.

    I’m a criminal defense guy. We have to investigate the victim. Everybody knows this. I work with people who are definitely above board and take great care in their investigations to protect the alleged victim from any further victimization. I often find that we treat the alleged victims better than the police and prosecutors. Sadly, that’s the exception, not the rule.

    So many bad criminal defense attorneys make the alleged victim’s sexual history the focus of their investigation, hoping to find some great nugget that will allow them to bypass the rape shield law, not realizing that the best way to actually defend your client is to attack the alleged victim’s credibility.

    I’ve left cases where the attorneys focused on the alleged victim’s sexual history to the exclusion of other, better investigative avenues. When I’ve helped win rape cases for the defense, and I have several times, it’s because I’ve demonstrated that the alleged victim is a liar, not that the alleged victim is promiscuous.

  315. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm |

    in that case there might be grounds, but I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that is the case.

    What firm would ever admit that the some old guy unfamiliar with the internet messed up when checking out law students on “the googles” and that’s the reason someone wasn’t hired? It just won’t happen.

  316. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm |

    Why would anyone want to work at a company staffed by people stupid enough to believe anything written on Autoadmit? Do hiring partners make decisions based on information written on bathroom stalls in the YLS mens room?

    you’re kidding me, right? And you’re in law school?

    The law firms are worried about their clients reading this stuff about the attorneys they have on staff. Its about keeping clients, dude. Think.

  317. Lesley Plum
    Lesley Plum March 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm |

    What firm would ever admit that the some old guy unfamiliar with the internet messed up when checking out law students on “the googles” and that’s the reason someone wasn’t hired? It just won’t happen.

    That’s not how those things happen. Having worked at a firm that underwent an investigation for something different, I can assure you of this. Of course no firm would admit it. You’d be surprised what stupid shit people will put into e-mails, though. Stuff that’s blatantly illegal. Or how the use of search logs can be used. Do not underestimate (1) people’s stupidity and (2) the ability of your IT department to track what you do on your work computer.

  318. Catherine Martell
    Catherine Martell March 8, 2007 at 3:14 pm |

    Mogg: Once again I note that you are allowed to make “a general statement” or even two, but you get cross when anyone else does the same.

    ZuZu did not catch a weighty error in my assertions (zuzu 253), I never stated that sexual history would or should be used.

    In response to grendelkhan’s points 242 and 243, which specifically alluded to the widespread criticism of victims’ personal lives and behaviour in rape cases, you said this:

    also in rape cases there are few is no witnesses to the crime, so casting doubt of the credibility on the alleged victim is also necessary.

    I think zuzu’s riposte was provoked by a fair interpretation of “credibility” in that context of the posts of grendelkhan to which you were yourself responding.

    Of course, she could have just been making a “general statement” about rape shield laws, which would be fine by you, I suppose?

  319. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm |

    What firm would ever admit that the some old guy unfamiliar with the internet messed up when checking out law students on “the googles” and that’s the reason someone wasn’t hired? It just won’t happen.

    Man I’d never hire you as my attorney. I file a suit, I get subpoena power. A person at a firm might not “admit” it, but if they wrote an email about it, sent someone a link, visited the website and read the posts in question, that will be found out when the email and ISP records come in. And unless that firm has a good writer over there than can put together a good motion to quash (note: that person obviously isn’t you), it won’t matter what they “say” happened. What they actually did would be found out.

    And then they’d be called to explain it under oath, under penalty of perjury. What do you think a big firm would do in that case? Risk the bar cards of their attorneys by telling them to lie, or pay a settlement to make the whole thing go away?

  320. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm |

    …bad criminal defense attorneys make the alleged victim’s sexual history the focus of their investigation…not realizing that the best way to actually defend your client is to attack the alleged victim’s credibility.

    When I’ve helped win rape cases for the defense, and I have several times, it’s because I’ve demonstrated that the alleged victim is a liar, not that the alleged victim is promiscuous.

    Sickle, thank you for making this statement. You’re being a feminist ally by not only treating people rationally, fairly, humanely, and logically, but also by going around telling your story that a the humanest approach just so happens to be the most logical (that is, likely to win) approach.

    (By the way, I sure would love to hear of you getting a speaking circuit giving that advice to other professionals! Good luck spreading the word and leaving people who’re better at their jobs in your wake everywhere you go.)

  321. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm |

    Ismone – re:326

    Interesting.

    Some of the picture contests and many of the picture threads on xoxo may be similar. For example, while the image of Jill located here may belong to her, isn’t the URL in the public domain? I can send it to my friends via e-mail, post it on xoxo, compare her to a BC law school student, etc. If she doesn’t like me discussing it, she can take it down or host it on a private site. It appears to me that xoxoers only cross the line when they re-host images on other sites.

  322. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm |

    also in rape cases there are few is no witnesses to the crime, so casting doubt of the credibility on the alleged victim is also necessary.

    Mogg (#247), read what Sickle just wrote in #326. He/She said that non-sexual-history-related and non-promiscuity-related attacks on credibility are much more effective and moral than sexual-history-related or promiscuity-related attacks on credibility.

    Sickle, someone with experience in the field, has just said that he’s/she’s found it isn’t even a good strategy to try to convince a jury that promiscuous in the past = liar about rape in the present. (Presumably, he/she means that it’s a much better strategy to convince a jury that liar in the past = liar about rape in the present.)

  323. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 3:25 pm |

    I think zuzu’s riposte was provoked by a fair interpretation of “credibility” in that context of the posts of grendelkhan to which you were yourself responding

    perhaps, however i’m not sure its fair to attack someone’s knowledge of evidence law on the basis that when they state a lawyer should attack credibility, the response is you can’t because sexual history isn’t admissable.

    i think sickle’s post 326 better explains the credibility issue i was referring to

  324. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 3:28 pm | *

    perhaps, however i’m not sure its fair to attack someone’s knowledge of evidence law on the basis that when they state a lawyer should attack credibility, the response is you can’t because sexual history isn’t admissable.

    Oh, man, you are *so* not any more than a 1L.

  325. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 3:30 pm |

    Katie Says:

    Mogg (#247), read what Sickle just wrote in #326. He/She said that non-sexual-history-related and non-promiscuity-related attacks on credibility are much more effective and moral than sexual-history-related or promiscuity-related attacks on credibility.

    Sickle, someone with experience in the field, has just said that he’s/she’s found it isn’t even a good strategy to try to convince a jury that promiscuous in the past = liar about rape in the present. (Presumably, he/she means that it’s a much better strategy to convince a jury that liar in the past = liar about rape in the present.)

    katie I totally agree with sickle’s post. I have never stated that lawyers should bring up sexual history or promiscuousity. I don’t think they should. all I stated was they would need to attack credibility, meaning trying to show the alleged victim is untrustworthy, as sickle explains it.

  326. Mogg
    Mogg March 8, 2007 at 3:33 pm |

    zuzu Says:
    March 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
    perhaps, however i’m not sure its fair to attack someone’s knowledge of evidence law on the basis that when they state a lawyer should attack credibility, the response is you can’t because sexual history isn’t admissable.

    Oh, man, you are *so* not any more than a 1L.

    wtf does that mean? that is what happened. you seem to misunderstand my posts then throw out attacks at my legal knowledge. i don’t get where its coming from

  327. Anacher Forester
    Anacher Forester March 8, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    As I said up at #269, these guys could face charges of making “Terroristic Threats” i.e. communicating to another person with the purpose to terrorize. Whether or not the defendant(s) had the intent or capability of committing the specified offense is immaterial. These pigs could be subject to Federal and State charges. Tracking down the worst of the lot would take an afternoon at most.

    AF

  328. debris
    debris March 8, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    I just understand that anything made public is no longer under the control the person who provided it.

    …except that I own the rights to the pictures. So they are, legally, under my control, and the posters did break the law when they used them without my consent.

    Indeed, the legal issue here goes beyond copyright infringement. The cretins who posted Jill’s (and others’) images in an offensive manner without her consent may be liable for the privacy torts of “false light” and “misappropriation“. I hasten to say that I’m no torts expert, and I can’t offer any opinion as to whether Jill would have such claims in this instance. But, it is simply untrue that, by posting her photos on Flicker, Jill somehow gave up any and all rights over how they were used.

  329. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm |

    Again, Sickle, thanks for being a great feminist / feminist ally.

    Look at what you did!

    In 336, after all that arguing, we finally can see what we & Mogg both believe, and we all have clearer words to use for communicating outside of feminist circles now and getting more discourses to points like comment #336, thanks to you.

  330. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm |

    As I said up at #269, these guys could face charges of making “Terroristic Threats” i.e. communicating to another person with the purpose to terrorize. Whether or not the defendant(s) had the intent or capability of committing the specified offense is immaterial. These pigs could be subject to Federal and State charges. Tracking down the worst of the lot would take an afternoon at most.

    Terrorism? Haha, declaring xoxo as terrorism is like using a nuke to take out an anthill. Remember in most arguments, the first person to bring up Hitler/Holocaust is on the losing side and has no valid points. I suppose terrorism is the new hotness.

  331. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub March 8, 2007 at 3:47 pm |

    Autoadmit, get a fucking life. You sniveling fuckmonkeys are too gutless to use your own names while you out and harass private citizens. You little net hemorrhoids can dish it out but you can’t take it.

    Ya know what? Lying about people isn’t protected under free speech, dipshit. Know what else? Encouraging other people to stalk women and then trash those uppity bitches for not liking it is pathetic at best, and can come back to bite you in your entitled ass. Whining and sniveling about how mean those whores! and bitches! are for calling you out on being stalker morons is laughable. But it does clue us all in as to why you and your merry band of inbred dumpster cheese is reduced to wacking off on message boards.

  332. The Chaff  » Blog Archive   » “Can I Look at Your Ass Now?”(or “I don’t want to be sexist, but damn, women are hot!”

    [...] s to be a sticking point for a lot of guys who are otherwise not particularly sexist: From a comment on this thread on Femisite: that there [...]

  333. r@d@r
    r@d@r March 8, 2007 at 3:57 pm |

    Evil Male Oppressor Says: zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZ
    zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz……………

  334. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 3:58 pm |

    Sheelzebub: I encourage you to find examples of anyone being stalked due to posts on autoadmit. I think the closest anyone came were a couple of posts mentioning seeing Jill in class when she posted a year ago.

    No cameraphone pictures of the YLS 1L girl entered in the top14 law school girls contest (second girl mentioned in WaPo article) were ever posted. To my knowledge, none were taken. It was simply mentioned that she looked great at the gym and wears clothing that shows off her body.

    While such posts may make people uncomfortable, do they constitute stalking?

  335. Fazia
    Fazia March 8, 2007 at 4:02 pm |

    But Ann’s response to a perfectly valid fear of being stalked and harassed is, “Too beautiful to appear in public? Too hot to be hired? Come on! What rational employer would deny you a job because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?”

    Maybe the supposedly “rational” employer who freaked out when he/she saw a picture of Barack Obama shirtless on a beach might deny me a position for the same reason? Or maybe the supposedly “rational” employer who fired an employee for having a “John Kerry for President” bumper sticker on her car might be judgmental about me and not hire me?

    Geez. What sexist naivety.

  336. Truc
    Truc March 8, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    Who was the lawyer from S&C identified on the Top 14 site? I worked there last summer, and can’t say I’m surprised.

  337. r@d@r
    r@d@r March 8, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    To be fair to autoadmit, the guys who run it made a defensible decision to a) not moderate their website and b) not require posters to give any identifying info.

    yeah, because that’s worked SO WELL for sites like Indymedia, etc. etc. etc.

    i HATE unmoderated comment areas on the internet, and avoid them like the plague-infested cesspools they are. i figure if i can’t manage to make the miniscule effort required to find a community somewhere in the vast tubes of the intarnets that won’t censor me, i might as well go back to writing on bathroom walls.

  338. norbizness
    norbizness March 8, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    #341/344 “Terroristic threat” has been on the books as a crime for years and years and has no connection to the conception of “terrorism” espoused in the go-go, Patriot Act-infected 21st century. Texas’ law (Penal Code 22.07) has been on the books since 1973.

    § 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

  339. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 4:24 pm |

    Autoadmit deity #348: You’re a stinking liar.

    Sheelzebub: I encourage you to find examples of anyone being stalked due to posts on autoadmit.

    Did you not read the article you’re replying to? Did you notice the part about full names and home phone numbers being posted? Are you intentionally acting like a brick wall in the hopes of not looking like a tool?

  340. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm |

    No cameraphone pictures of the YLS 1L girl entered in the top14 law school girls contest (second girl mentioned in WaPo article) were ever posted. To my knowledge, none were taken.

    Thank goodness for that. (so far) :-\

  341. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm |

    It was simply mentioned that she looked great at the gym and wears clothing that shows off her body.

    While such posts may make people uncomfortable, do they constitute stalking?

    It does here in California. YMMV depending on your state, but in California it could be used as proof that the poster is stalking the person.

    Have fun when you guys get your asses sued after one of your “anonymous” posters finally assaults someone.

  342. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm |

    norbizness: Given the outlandish nature of posts on autoadmit, it’s unlikely a phrase like “i’ll force myself on her, most definitely. can’t wait to meet the young lady.” would “place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”

    Note the “i’ll force myself…” line above is taken directly from the xoxo thread the YLS 2L mentioned in the WaPo story claims prevented her from obtaining a 2L summer job.

  343. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm | *

    Sheelzebub: I encourage you to find examples of anyone being stalked due to posts on autoadmit. I think the closest anyone came were a couple of posts mentioning seeing Jill in class when she posted a year ago.

    No cameraphone pictures of the YLS 1L girl entered in the top14 law school girls contest (second girl mentioned in WaPo article) were ever posted. To my knowledge, none were taken. It was simply mentioned that she looked great at the gym and wears clothing that shows off her body.

    While such posts may make people uncomfortable, do they constitute stalking?

    Well, that’s an ultimate question for the court, innit, pumpkin?

    My, you sure like to draw your terms narrowly. Why, I never knew until today that “stalking” meant “posting photos so overentitled knobs could drool at them.”

  344. Viannah
    Viannah March 8, 2007 at 4:34 pm |

    Gods, I am so sorry for the shit you’ve had to endure. I feel very sick to my stomach right now. I’m scared to leave my house and I didn’t even hear about this crap until today. I don’t know how you manage it.

  345. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm | *

    Oh, and BTW: New York (you know, where Jill is) has a pretty tough cyberstalking law.

  346. bc
    bc March 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm |

    Something similar is brewing over at BC Law:

    http://eagleionline.com/blog/?p=186

  347. grendelkhan
    grendelkhan March 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm |

    You know, I take it back. I thought these people were terrible lawyers, but I think they’ll actually make good litigators. They’ve mastered misdirection and lie like rugs. We’ve seen assertions that there was no stalking going on (despite the description right in the story), we’ve seen assertions that posting pictures on the internet implicitly relinquishes copyright.

    If you read the Slashdot thread, there are anonymous posters claiming that the burden of proof for libel rests on the libeled party, and that all the useful content on the site somehow makes up for the libel, the stalking and the threats.

    No law student could possibly believe these things. These are all cheap attempts to draw attention away from the fact that these guys provide an anonymous forum for libel, for stalking, for threats, and that they want to avoid being held responsible for it, like the spoiled, overprivileged brats they are.

  348. Peter Stinson
    Peter Stinson March 8, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    And you want to work in the same office with some of these morons?

    Of course, since the men publish anonymously, we’ll never know who they are… too bad, too, ’cause as it stands now, every man is guilty… they ought to not be so pansy as to stand up for what they believe… and that includes putting out their words with their names… what are they afraid of?

    And to think that when I was younger, I wanted to be an attorney… thank God for small favors, I guess…

  349. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 4:40 pm | *

    norbizness: Given the outlandish nature of posts on autoadmit, it’s unlikely a phrase like “i’ll force myself on her, most definitely. can’t wait to meet the young lady.” would “place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”

    Good thing you don’t get to decide that, hm?

    I don’t recall offhand if there’s a “reasonable person” or “reasonable woman” at play here, but given the encouragement to stalk this woman at the gym, I’d say it’s quite reasonable for her to fear imminent serious bodily injury.

  350. Matt
    Matt March 8, 2007 at 4:42 pm |

    The objectification of men doesn’t affect men in the way the same for women affects women because the objectification of men isn’t inherent to society as the objectification of women is. There’s a reason no one talks about rampant misandry (namely because the intellect of people who would talk about how decidedly ‘feminist’ society hates on them generally doesn’t lend itself to this sort of obvious misogyny/misandry opposition) you know, and because as a widespread social phenomenon, it doesn’t exist. (that’s debatable if we get into debate about how to construct the category of men (but the category of men (in the context of feminist theory) = can of peanut brittle))
    I don’t like the idea that if the objectification of men manifested itself in the way that it does against women that it would impact men the same way to be objectified. That idea is dangerous in two ways, the first being that it trivializes the objectification of women and the second that it makes men an unfeeling other, neither of which I think are good things. If the same things that had happened to Jill had happened to me frankly I’d be as confused and disturbed. Although, admittedly, a world in which this sort of thing would happen to me is hard to imagine.

    But, Jill that’s utter crap that those anonymity-wielding clowns violated the basic standards of decency by which normal people abide in order to make the online social networks and the online maintenance of off-line social networks work. And for what reason? It is these clowns that make the argument for the New Right-brand social regulation that so many of us dread. Sorry.

  351. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 4:43 pm |

    zuzu (363): do you know what the word imminent means?

  352. flynngrrl
    flynngrrl March 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm |

    Hang in there, Team Awesome Ladies. There are a lot of people standing behind you, hoping you win.

  353. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 8, 2007 at 4:49 pm |

    autoadmit deity wrote:

    The information posted is drawn from publicly-available databases such as these:

    http://www.yale.edu/oldYaleInfo/directory.html

    Are you guys really suggesting that NOT taking down posts with directory information is criminal?

    I am boggled that someone running a high-traffic site could be so ignorant of basic netiquette.

    Posting personal contact information (including home address, phone number, or cell number) about someone else on a public forum has been an Internet no-no since before your sun burned hot in space before there was “http”. It is not generally against the law, but it is against the rules — the rules of sense and human decency.

    The reason it’s against the rules (for those of you still wet behind the ears) is because cyberstalking and cyberharrassment are way too easy. They are so easy that putting personal contact info in public is considered ipso facto incitement to harrass — even if there is no proof that harrassment takes place.

    I’m not saying this is the law — yet. But it’s certainly something every sane site administrator or moderator knows, and you have no excuse for not knowing it. The very fact that you took down contact info for posters indicates that you do, in fact, know that this is over-the-line behavior.

  354. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 4:50 pm |

    Given the outlandish nature of posts on autoadmit, it’s unlikely a phrase like “i’ll force myself on her, most definitely. can’t wait to meet the young lady.” would “place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”

    I don’t recall offhand if there’s a “reasonable person” or “reasonable woman” at play here, but given the encouragement to stalk this woman at the gym, I’d say it’s quite reasonable for her to fear imminent serious bodily injury.

    Ditto.

  355. Katie
    Katie March 8, 2007 at 4:52 pm |

    366–it seems that she does know what “imminent” means, since as far as I can tell, she was using the word perfectly.

  356. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 4:53 pm |

    AAD–re: your 335

    I think you are conceptualizing this too narrowly. Just because linking to someone’s picture may not be in and of itself actionable does not mean that the act of linking to the picture could not be part of a course of conduct that is actionable. So basically, an act may not give rise to a lawsuit in and of itself, but that doesn’t mean that the act is immunized and becomes a “legal” act for which a person cannot be punished.

    For example: consider these two situations.
    1) Picture of Ms. X, snapped in public, is placed in a newspaper.
    2) Picture of Ms. X, snapped in public, is placed in a newspaper with the caption “lying slut.”

    While 1) usually isn’t actionable, 2) is. Also, the factfinder would be allowed to consider the use of the photograph in situation two. So the fact that posting a photograph taken in a public place is not illegal does not mean that posting a photograph taken of a person in a public place is always legal.

    Another example: yelling at employees–not illegal. Yelling only at female employees, such a hostile work environment is created (even if the yeller never used gendered language or otherwise made it clear that s/he was yelling at them because they are women) = unlawful sexual harassment.

  357. blondie
    blondie March 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm |

    I haven’t read all these comments; so sorry if someone has already pointed this out. Various states have incorporated internet stalking into their criminal statutes. Thus, I’d suggest researching the criminal code in NY to determine whether fellow NYU students could be committing criminal offenses by engaging in internet stalking behavior. Even if the posters believe they are anonymous, you could alert their ISP to criminal conduct, etc. Additionally, if you believe some of the posters are fellow NYU law students, you could check into whether the school has a code of conduct and see if the school could become involved in attempting to stop this sexual harassment.

  358. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm |

    Doctor Science: You want a police state where posting information from a public directory is a crime? I hope you’re not implying that. Truly scary.

    Note: I don’t run autoadmit.

  359. Anacher Forester
    Anacher Forester March 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm |

    Autodamit-

    You know not of which you speak. Making a terroristic threat does not normally nor necessarily have anything to do with the “Greater War on Terrorism” or terrorists. A terroristic threat is defined as “threatening violence; intending to terrorize. Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another.” When an estranged spouse calls/tells/emails his wife and threatens to kill, rape and or otherwise harm her, he is charged with, among other things, making a terroristic threat regardless of intent or capability. It’susually good for up to five years in jail, $10k or both.

    Having a web site documenting these threats only facilitates prosecution. A few screen captures, IP address traces and a female prosecutor later and these losers are toast. With all the loans these scum have taken out to fund their education, you’d think they’d be careful not to so blatantly jeopardize their investment in their careers

    AF

  360. blondie
    blondie March 8, 2007 at 5:03 pm |

    NY’s criminal code re: stalking — http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a27.html

  361. But that's wrong.
    But that's wrong. March 8, 2007 at 5:04 pm |

    Jill’s a public figure.

  362. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 5:06 pm |

    In the interest of accuracy, I’ll point out that she actually wasn’t wearing “clothing that shows off her body.” According to the poster, she was wearing an over-sized t-shirt and basic shorts. And he was disappointed that he couldn’t get a better look at her tits.

    See, this is where AutoAdmit has a problem. The posters writing about what she was wearing is evidence of stalking. Now, we don’t know if the person who posted this was “stalking” or not (maybe he just happened to be in the gym at the same time), but that line alone is evidence to suggest that he might have been doing just that.

    AutoAdmit should be more careful than it is, especially since it’s populated by future lawyers. They’re not going to get a lick of warning if an ADA or AUSA opens an investigation into their activities and/or their membership, and with each new post talking about spying on these unsuspecting women, their civil and criminal exposure only deepens.

    It’s incredibly irresponsible of them, particularly because they cannot guarantee the anonymity of their posters (all of that is subject to subpoena from either law enforcement or someone with legal standing to request the information). If you’re one of the people who posted in those threads, I’d be pretty damned nervous right now. Eventually it’s going to piss off the wrong person.

    To a future employer, it’s one thing to have your name turn up in a google search. It’s quite another thing to have your name turn up in a court index of defendants. Think about it.

  363. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 5:09 pm |

    The term stalking has been thrown around nonstop. Let’s go back and look at the incidents that have been called stalking:

    * Top14 law school girls has her address/phone number posted from her school directory.
    * xoxo posters mention they’ve seen Jill in class.
    * xoxo posters mention they’ve seen YLS1L (second girl from WaPo story) at the gym, that they’d like to lick her sweat, and that she has large breasts. someone suggests pictures of her should be taken with a camera phone.

    Keeping in mind that no assault has taken place, no one has been found to be following these girls, no one has shown up at any of the contestant’s homes, I ask you this: Those of you who have termed these as stalking, please explain.

    Also remember the nature of comments on autoadmit is primarily to offend as much as possible. This slashdot poster has written up a good background on autoadmit.

  364. raging red
    raging red March 8, 2007 at 5:12 pm |

    Althouse:

    Anyway, I wish people would stop saying I’m blaming Jill or whatever. I’m not saying the women did something wrong. Quite the opposite. I’m just saying there are ways to minimize dangers, and dangers that you see and decide to risk. There are harms for which you pursue remedies and harms that you blow off. I’m just recommending being sane and reasonable about what you do when other people wrong you.

    There’s a street I need to cross every day going back and forth to my parking garage. I see people run the red light all the time. They are wrong. It bugs me. But one thing I do is watch and wait until I’m sure the cars have stopped. That doesn’t make them less wrong.

    Jesus, Jill, why didn’t you look both ways before you crossed the street?

  365. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 5:15 pm | *

    zuzu (363): do you know what the word imminent means?

    Yes, I do.

    And I also know that whether or not the threat is sufficiently imminent, or the fear sufficiently reasonable, is a question for the finder of fact.

  366. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm |

    Keeping in mind that no assault has taken place, no one has been found to be following these girls, no one has shown up at any of the contestant’s homes, I ask you this: Those of you who have termed these as stalking, please explain.

    I term them as possible stalking. Nothing has “been found” because there hasn’t been an investigation yet. What if I were to investigate this and I found out that several posters have followed Jill directly to her home or apartment or wherever it is that she lives? Then what would you say?

    Tell you what, how about you convince AutoAdmit to provide me with the real names of the posters in question and their locations, I’ll investigate the matter, and tell you what’s actually happening? Better yet, how about you provide me with your real name and location and I can interview you about what and who you know? You and Lathorpe are the obvious places to start an investigation based on your intense interest in this topic here. I’d be very curious about what you have to say, especially when I inevitably determine whether or not you lied to me.

  367. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 5:23 pm | *

    Jill’s a public figure.

    And?

    If you’re talking about libel, I think there’s sufficient evidence of actual malice on that cesspool to overcome the NYT public-figure standard.

    If you’re talking about stalking, Jill’s being a public figure has fuck-all to do with it.

  368. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 5:34 pm |

    Sickle: I think I’ll wait for the feds to charge me with terroristic threats!

    hth

  369. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    Note: I don’t run autoadmit.

    So therefore you’re on here talking about autoadmit policies that you have no influence over and can do jack shit about?

    Yeah, that sounds about right for your batting average so far in this thread. You haven’t been right about a single legal issue yet, either.

  370. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 5:43 pm |

    Sickle: I think I’ll wait for the feds to charge me with terroristic threats!

    Thought so. ;-)

  371. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 5:44 pm |

    I am familiar with autoadmit and the “outing policy” there. I never suggested I could change the policy or have posts removed.

  372. debris
    debris March 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm |

    Indeed, if Jill is a public figure, that only makes it more likely that she may have a “right of publicity” claim for misappropriation of her photos.

  373. International Women’s Day/Blog Against Sexism « Debris

    [...] I would merely recommend a few topical posts I’ve enjoyed today: Feministe: “Hi, I’m Jill, and scummy law school sleazebags have gone afte [...]

  374. Hold them accountable
    Hold them accountable March 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm |

    Online harassment is a course of conduct directed at an individual that causes substantial emotional distress in that person and which serves no legitimate purpose.

    Online harassment may include…

    Unwanted / unsolicited e-mail

    Unwanted / unsolicited chat or instant messages

    Public or private messages on IRC

    Disturbing messages on Usenet or bulletin boards

    Unsolicited comments about you to others

    Online harassment is a crime in New York State punishable by up to one year in jail, a $1000 fine, or both:

    Penal Code § 240.30. Aggravated harassment in the second degree. 1965. Amended 2001.
    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
    2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or

    3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation,regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

    4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.
    Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

    Penal Code § 240.31. Aggravated harassment in the first degree. 1982. Amended 2000.
    A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:

    1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or

    2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or he has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years.
    Aggravated harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.

    Jill: Regardless of whether the pics were copyright violations; this is most certainly not just a civil matter…it’s criminal. If any of these people reside in the state of NY, I’m sure the Cybercrime unit of the local DA’s office would be interested in looking in to this. If you would like information about all relevant case law in NY State regarding harrassement and public message boards (specifically in regards to threats of rape) feel free to send me an email; though I’m assuming you can do the research all by yourself.

    Good luck.

  375. Hugo
    Hugo March 8, 2007 at 6:15 pm |

    Gosh, I get swamped at school and miss all this. I have nothing to add, other than a voice of support for Jill and everyone else targeted by these lads. I’m lucky; the MRAs only compare me to Quisling and the Vichy Regime.

    I posted about this last year, when this crap was first happening to Jill: A note about blogging and pictures.

    Let me quote myself:

    Like Lauren, Jill, Trish, Amanda, and other feminist bloggers, I’ve been attacked by “trolls” who’ve said some fairly nasty things about me. But though I have close to a hundred pictures of me in my photo albums, none of my critics ever go after my weight or my looks. None of the MRAs have called me “ugly” or “fat” or anything similar. This silence about my appearance is not a compliment to me as an individual, but rather a function of male privilege.

    The attacks on my see-saw picture last year were not about my body or my face — they were about my engaging in an “unmanly” activity. Trolls, you see, attack men for acting in ways that aren’t congruent with generally accepted standards of masculinity; they attack women for their weight and their looks. In that sense, I — and other male bloggers whose photos are up — are protected from the kind of nastiness directed towards Jill at the moment. Though my MRA (men’s rights advocate) critics have often been vicious towards me, they have never used the kind of highly personal and sexualized invective they direct towards the women at Feministe and other feminist blogs. Yes, folks, once again a kind of perverse male privilege protects someone like me. Somehow, it seems that even among trolls, a code of conduct bars insulting remarks about other men’s bodies.

  376. Julie
    Julie March 8, 2007 at 6:20 pm |

    Ok, I had orginally quoted the line I am thinking of, but it made me want to vomit, so if you follow the obnoxious autoadmit link where Jill’s participation is requested, there is very, very definate stalking behavior going on. If yiu don’t see it, I think you need to get out a damn dictionary and remind yourself of the meaning of stalking. If someone ever emailed/IM’ed/sent me a message on myspace saying that, I would be seriously creeped out and probably report it immediately as some sort of voyeurism/stalking.

  377. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 6:32 pm |

    If someone ever emailed/IM’ed/sent me a message on myspace saying that, I would be seriously creeped out and probably report it immediately as some sort of voyeurism/stalking.

    that thread is, in fact, quite disturbing, especially the posts from Lathorpe about liking the pants Jill was wearing. I’d go to the police with it, and I have no doubt that some of the law profs at NYU know a sympathetic ADA who would take it on, or at least an ADA eager to make a name for him- or herself in an emerging field of criminal law.

  378. BStu
    BStu March 8, 2007 at 6:32 pm |

    How is it stalking? Is that a serious question? First off, the original post suggested that these posts opened people up to stalking. Not that it was stalking itself.

    Frankly, I think that was too kind and obviously others here feel the same way. Collecting personal information about someone and posting it in a manner that will encourage harassment is a stalker-type behavior. That the discussion escalated into actualy discriptions of real-world encounters with these women and that posters were encouraged to continue this behavior is just another nail in the coffin. These actions are very likely to cause reasonable fear of a risk to one’s safety. Inducing stalking while posting personal contact information is a pretty obvious combination to cause mental or emotional harm to someone. It is disgusting. That anyone couldn’t recognize how disgusting this is and still think of themselves as a civilized member of society is scary.

  379. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 8, 2007 at 6:39 pm |

    1) to someone who grew up with a mother and sisters who religiously watched miss america and miss usa, the idea of seeing the most attractive student in the top law schools seemed pretty mainstream
    2) those who voluntarily waived any expectation of privacy in one’s pictures by posting them on the internet can hardly complain when strangers look at them.
    3) copying pictures violates the takers’ copyrights
    4) taking one’s own pictures of ppl in public places creates one’s own intellectual property.
    5) ppl do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place
    6) parties using one’s image to make money violate one’s right of publicity.

  380. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm |

    And the anti-outing policy extends to all posters, of whom a substantial number are women.

    Then how come I can find the real names and contact information of several of the women in the contest on AutoAdmit?

    As someone else has already pointed out, the policy applies only to posters. Additionally, posters who provide identifying information (“out” themselves) are no longer protected. As it exists now, the outing policy only restricts posts which link a specific poster with their real identity. A loose interpretation of these policies was probably employed to justify allowing your information to remain after you became posted on the site. This policy is perhaps outdated and posters have recently been cooperating to draft a new outing policy, one which will hopefully include protections for innocent private individuals and avenues to fight googlebombing. To be honest, the site admins sometimes take advantage of ambiguities in the current policy to play favorites, another problem that the community is trying to address.

    I’d also like to point out that those accusing posters on xo of stalking are relying heavily on the language of the WaPo article, which rather liberally interpreted a discussion of the copyright protections of the photos. In a thread started to discuss the avenues available to the women who wished to be taken off the contest site a poster pointed out that if someone were to submit pictures of the women they had taken in a public place only then would the subjects in the photos not have recourse to copyright protections. At no time, to my knowledge, was this behavior encouraged nor did it take place.

    Now, none of this defends the behavior of some posters on the site, which I and many others find beyond the pale even for a site which finds humor in the most base and cruel topics (i.e. Chris Reeve riding Barbaro in hell). In some ways it seems as though the party is over and this may be the final straw. I fully encourage you and other victims of the site to pursue any action you feel worthwhile, though I believe it’s just a lot of online barking and would disappear if ignored. Best of luck.

  381. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    Hector B–

    What about the rape comments? Is that pretty typical for a beauty contest? And what about the fact that these women didn’t enter the “beauty contest”?

    I’m not sure what you mean by mentioning things about expectations of privacy and the photographs. False light can still apply whether the photographs are private or not (and they are still copyrighted, as you seem to acknowledge) if they are used to give others a misleading impression of the women in them.

    Iz

  382. Chrisn
    Chrisn March 8, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    But seriously, isn’t law school kind of militaristic? ISn’t it full of intesnse pressure and a lot of assholes anyways?

    It may come around to bite them in the ass someday, obviously they’re not handling themselves very well.

    Hopefully you’ll just be the bigger person.

  383. links for 2007-03-09 « Jet Grrl
    links for 2007-03-09 « Jet Grrl March 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm |

    [...] sale in the Gatwick slave auctions | News | This is London (tags: Sorrow Feminism News) Feministe » Hi, I’m Jill, and scummy law school sleazebags have [...]

  384. Sickle
    Sickle March 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm |

    I’d also like to point out that those accusing posters on xo of stalking are relying heavily on the language of the WaPo article…

    Are you serious? Read the damn threads there. If anything, the WaPo article understated the number and character of the stalkerish comments.

  385. Lorelei
    Lorelei March 8, 2007 at 8:05 pm |

    autoadmit,

    can you explain the thrill or pleasure of making asshole comments, saying horribly rude things, and being an all-around jerk trying to offend as much as possible is?

    maybe i have a handful of brain cells and that’s why i can’t understand.

    in any case, as someone who’s been fucking raped, if someone posted my address somewhere and talked about how they wanted to lick my sweat off of me, i’d be scared fucking shitless.

    what the fuck do you think is the point of posting someone’s address? yeah, it’s already in the white pages, but posting it on a forum where you’re already saying shit about the person kind of describes, oh, i don’t know, some sort of malicious intent, i’d say. again, if some people were discussing me the way Jill had been talked about and then someone said, ‘OH BTW HERE IS LORELEI’S ADDRESS,’ i’d be staying at a friend’s apartment for a week is all i’ve got to say.

    because seriously. if you think someone pointedly posting someone’s address like that is innocent, you need your head checked.

  386. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax March 8, 2007 at 8:13 pm |

    Jill’s a public figure.

    As, evidently, is every single female law student with a Flickr account.

    I can see where, hypothetically, Jill being a public figure could get you off the hook on evaluating her hotness (without violating her copyright by reposting her photos against her express wishes), especially if she were a public figure at least partly on the basis of her perceived hotness. But I’m mystified as to how it would get anyone off the hook on any of the rest of it.

  387. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm |

    autoadmit deity et al:

    Just to check my impression, I asked a reasonably intelligent 11-year-old if it’s OK to put someone’s real name, address & phone number on the Internet if they didn’t ask you to. She said, “Of course not! Everyone knows *that*.”

    So it’s official: You are not as smart as a fifth grader.

  388. jesus jones
    jesus jones March 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm |

    “Or in Twisty’s words, we have no idea how much men hate us.”

    True dat. My roommates in college joined fraternities. Ungood. I used to go on that website when I was thinking of going to LS a few year ago. Its sickening.

    Hey Jill, if you or anyone feels like suing these assholes, can you open up some kind of tip jar? I’d like to help. I really don’t know what else to do, they get to hide behind their anonymity.

  389. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 8, 2007 at 8:37 pm |

    the only reference to rape I see is in the comments here. can you link to a thread relating rape to anyone in either the post article or the beauty contest?
    regarding false light: the only falseness I see is that some people could have been misled that the women voluntarily entered their pictures. then the idea that law students voluntarily entered their pictures must be objectionable to the reasonable person. Because people like Erika Harold both voluntarily enter beauty pageants, and attend top law schools, this would be a hard case to make.

  390. norbizness
    norbizness March 8, 2007 at 8:40 pm |

    The inverse of Twisty’s paradigm, as expressed by Dr. Katz guest Larry Miller: “If women knew what men were thinking… I mean REALLY thinking… we would never stop getting slapped.”

  391. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 8:41 pm |

    Context matters. Posting a public phone number or address can be considered harrassment in the right circumstances as an example. If the discussion is about “hey, I’d love to take pictures of this girl” and the reply is her address that most likely is harrassment.

    The AutoAdmit guys have taken personal information down in the past. That means their main defense, that they are not aware of or responsible for the content of their own site, is null and void.

    That defense is somewhat weak to begin with – it did not work for YouTube or Kazaa for example, although it has been used by ISPs. But once you admit that you have *any* sort of policy regarding the content of posts you take on some culpability, especially if you have been made aware of an offense.

    If you do some moderation of posts and admit you are aware of violations and do nothing about them you are not on sound footing.

    Surprising that prospective lawyers don’t get this.

  392. Stacy
    Stacy March 8, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    I’m a high school teacher and know very little about the law. But I know teenagers who have been brought to court for harassment for saying things like, “I know guys who would beat him up if I asked them to.” If you can get brought to court for that, you can definitely get brought to court for the disgusting dribble that guys are writing about Jill and other women (and men of color as well) on Auto Admit.

    And regardless of legal definitions of stalking or harassment, this stuff is morally reprehensible. Really disgusting.

  393. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 8, 2007 at 8:46 pm |

    1) to someone who grew up with a mother and sisters who religiously watched miss america and miss usa, the idea of seeing the most attractive student in the top law schools seemed pretty mainstream

    Except, of course, that women voluntarily enter the Miss America pageant. The pageant doesn’t search the internet for pictures of women they go to class with and then put them on a website for people to critique.

    And, more importantly, the women who participate in the Miss America pageant are compensated for their time. Sure, they call it a “scholarship,” but they receive money for their participation.

    So if you want to claim that these guys are no different than the Miss America pageant, when does Jill’s $75,000 check arrive? (That’s what Miss America 2002 ended up earning by her pageant participation.)

  394. Laurie
    Laurie March 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm |

    Just to throw this out, as a piece of information:

    If you take a picture of someone in a public place that you intend to publish (whether it is actually published or not), you are supposed to get their permission to use that photo (at least in Minnesota). I know more than one professional/semi-professional photographer who has business card sized model “contracts” printed up that they carry with them to use when asking for permission to use people’s images. People need to sign these things stating that they give permission for their image to be used. I believe that newspaper/news magazine photographers are supposed to do the same thing. I can’t explain the papparazzi. :P My guess is that *actual* public figures waive that right by the very fact that they are public figures. (No offense, Jill, but I’m not sure that you qualify as an actual “public figure”. At least not yet. :)

    I’m not trying to incite any riots here — just throwing out one thing about using someone’s picture without their express permission that I know for a fact. At least in the frozen northland.

  395. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 8:58 pm |

    http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7724184

    This thread is *clearly* harrassment and *intended* to be harrassment. Please go after these people!

    Do us all a favor and talk to a good lawyer.

  396. Susan
    Susan March 8, 2007 at 9:04 pm |

    Doctor Science:

    Just to check my impression, I asked a reasonably intelligent 11-year-old if it’s OK to put someone’s real name, address & phone number on the Internet if they didn’t ask you to. She said, “Of course not! Everyone knows *that*.”

    So it’s official: You are not as smart as a fifth grader.

    *snort* Yeah, you’d think “adults” would understand a basic concept like that, wouldn’t you?

    This whole “outing” policy seems backasswards to me: the very idiots who post this stuff should be the ones with real identities and contact info spread far and wide; and the poor folks unaware they’re being discussed in this sewer are the ones who should be protected, with any personal info taken down tout de suite. Somebody designed a board on Backwards Day.

  397. ahunt
    ahunt March 8, 2007 at 9:07 pm |

    You challenge me to identify myself. But that is where we differ,
    From Lathorpe’s response:

    Jill. I value my privacy, therefore I protect it. The problem is that you and all the women mentioned by this website have not valued their privacy and have not protected it. You guys wake up agog that your pictures are plastered all over, but how carefully did you keep your privacy? There is the ideal, and then there is the practical. Pretend you left your wallet on a park bench. Ideally, no one should take it. As a practical matter, you shouldn’t have left it there expecting to find it in the morning.

    Lathorpe is able to hide behind his anonymity which is a good thing because otherwise people might think he is a coward.

  398. Laurie
    Laurie March 8, 2007 at 9:07 pm |

    Hector B —
    Putting aside for the moment the problematic aspects of beauty contests, the women competing in them did/do so of their own free will. More or less. They are not, in general, where they can see/hear/read it, subjected to the crudities that the young women on AutoAdmit were. If you do not see where someone you don’t know (or MIGHT know) posting in that kind of forum that they’d “like to lick the sweat off of (your) face” is disturbing, thank your male privilege. Personally, that would send me running for the nearest law enforcement authority I could *find*. It is one thing to have a friend/lover say that kind of thing, whether joking around or serious. It is QUITE another to have some random stranger say that to/about you. Given the kind of crap that some women face on a daily basis, that comes across as a THREAT. If I were a single woman and my address/other contact information was posted publicly WITH MY PICTURE, that would come across as a threat to my safety. Hell, as an old married woman living with my husband, that’s a threat.

    This is what society looks like when women are told that we (and only we) can prevent rape/assault by how we conduct our lives. This shit looks like, smells like, and feels like a threat. And it is one, purely by encouraging that sort of trash talk and thinking.

    Welcome to *our* world.

  399. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm |

    Random Observer (413)

    That thread is a direct response to Jill’s blog post. Here’s the relevant part: “We go to school together, don’t we Lathorpe? How about you come and introduce yourself and we can have this conversation in person?”

  400. rescina
    rescina March 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm |

    Who was the S&C lawyer who posted on the Top 14 page?

  401. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 9:11 pm |

    Hector B–

    Read the threads yourself. I have found both rape and hatef*ck comments. I won’t link to them because I won’t give them additional publicity.

    Iz

  402. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 8, 2007 at 9:12 pm |

    can you explain the thrill or pleasure of making asshole comments, saying horribly rude things, and being an all-around jerk trying to offend as much as possible is?

    maybe i have a handful of brain cells and that’s why i can’t understand.

    Maybe you’re just wired differently? There a long line of humor that relies primarily on the transgression of boundaries and the violations of taboos, from Rabelais to South Park. The anonymous nature of XO was originally established to allow for frank discussion of many aspects of law school and fim life, which people would not otherwise be able to have. This also allows engage in shock humor without repercussions and creates a space I think many people need and is not without value. The outting policy was established to prevent the intrusion of real life consequences into XO, and it seems there now need to be new policies enacted to prevent the intrusion of XO into real life.

  403. Lauren
    Lauren March 8, 2007 at 9:14 pm |

    # autoadmit deity Says:
    March 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pm e

    Random Observer (413)

    That thread is a direct response to Jill’s blog post. Here’s the relevant part: “We go to school together, don’t we Lathorpe? How about you come and introduce yourself and we can have this conversation in person?”

    Here’s what’s relevant: What kind of pants was Jill wearing today?

    Why is it relevant? Poorly veiled threat.

  404. sifl
    sifl March 8, 2007 at 9:16 pm |

    That thread is a direct response to Jill’s blog post. Here’s the relevant part: “We go to school together, don’t we Lathorpe? How about you come and introduce yourself and we can have this conversation in person?”

    So what? What does that have to do with the disgusting comments that he makes in the thread?

  405. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 9:26 pm |

    lauren (420): No, Lathrope likes to dress up in women’s clothing and wanted to know where Jill bought her pants.

    In all seriousness, construing a comment like “I liked your pants today” as a threat is the height of idiocy. Here, it is meant solely to needle a sensitive soul and to bring on the silly charges of “stalking” and “harassment” you and her other friends are making above.

    As someone who runs a blog and has thousands of flickr pictures online, Jill must know it’s inevitable that people will recognize her, especially within a community as small as a law school. She has introduced an informational asymmetry to her life. Many people she doesn’t know will have impressions of her based on her online persona. If she wishes to avoid this, she can solve the problem by curtailing her web presence and hoping people have short memories.

  406. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm |

    Or she can call people out for their bad behavior, like she did. Posting your picture on the net does not make it okay for someone to talk about raping or hatef*cking you, or to make it clear that they are watching you. It does not make defaming you okay. It does not make violating your copyrights okay.

  407. RKMK
    RKMK March 8, 2007 at 9:49 pm |

    Lathorpe couches his knowledge in such broad terms that his comments could apply to almost anyone (after all, who hasn’t dated “that guy you used to date,” and who doesn’t wear pants in NY when it’s 25 degrees outside?). So not only does he not actually know shit about me, and not only is he too much of a wuss to let me know who he is, but he’s enough of an asshole to pretend that he does just to see how nervous he can make me.

    Luckily, I am not an idiot, and so this is not working. But it does reflect pretty poorly on his character that he would go to all this trouble just to make me think I’m being stalked, doesn’t it?

    Jill FTW!

  408. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 9:54 pm |

    I was wearing a dress with leggings/tights underneath

    Jill, I was hoping you would come on here and say something that conflicted with lathrope’s claim that he saw you today. This supports my point that most of the comments that are construed as stalking, harassment, etc. are made just to be silly and ridiculous. Coming off as vaguely creepy is purposeful on xoxo. I think understanding the nature of the site and spending some time there would make be helpful for a lot of you. For example, it’s clear that the comments encouraging cell phone pics in the gym weren’t serious but trying to make people laugh by coming up with a weird and pathetic thing to do. (Note: no cell phone pics were posted and none were taken to my knowledge.)

    I guess I can’t post the thread that is the main subject of the WaPo article here because it contains the “victim’s” name, but in there :D, a noted xoxo poster, says as way of introduction to the “victim’s” imposter: “…im a 19 year old virgin male in texas. be glad you aren’t me.” Later, he says, “do you feel pity for me? (19 year old male virgin)” Taking the so-called threats on xoxo seriously seems really foolish to anyone who has spent any time there.

  409. VJ
    VJ March 8, 2007 at 9:54 pm |

    Basta! Enough of this BS. We do not dialog with criminals & creeps . Jill, I’ve got $200 I’m willing to donate to the cause of suing these SOB’s for their continued harassment of women. I’m willing to bet a jury of their peers will not think that hatefu*king and rape threats are all that funny. Has anyone contacted the ISP yet? Are there any lawyers willing to take on these good ole boys? Remember now, they’ll be defended by the best criminal minds in the country to protect their vile assaults. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  410. ahunt
    ahunt March 8, 2007 at 10:00 pm |

    Jill, this has gone far enough. If Lathorpe is indeed a fellow student, he has crossed the line with the “pants” remark.

    As someone who runs a blog and has thousands of flickr pictures online, Jill must know it’s inevitable that people will recognize her, especially within a community as small as a law school. She has introduced an informational asymmetry to her life. Many people she doesn’t know will have impressions of her based on her online persona. If she wishes to avoid this, she can solve the problem by curtailing her web presence and hoping people have short memories.

    Yup Auto…silencing uppity women and limiting public participation is really what this is all about. You JACKASS!

  411. JR
    JR March 8, 2007 at 10:05 pm |

    In all seriousness, construing a comment like “I liked your pants today” as a threat is the height of idiocy..

    Sure, “I know where you live, I know what you do, and I can be in your presence at any time” is not a threat. What colour is the sky in your universe, Ogilvie plaid?

    I can’t speak to privacy law where Jill is, as I’m not a lawyer. I know how it works vis a vis photography up here, but your laws are quite variable (and pretty much a cesspit). However, “false light” slander can still be used by public figures (that’s even if Jill qualifies, and most of these girls definitely don’t), all you have to do is demonstrate malice, which is not going to be hard in this case.

    And it is going to involve subpeonas and discovery. Wave your precious anonymity good-bye, fellows. I will personally make sure it gets to the relevant search engines “Top of the Pops” if this goes gold.

  412. Dorothy
    Dorothy March 8, 2007 at 10:07 pm |

    In all seriousness, construing a comment like “I liked your pants today” as a threat is the height of idiocy. Here, it is meant solely to needle a sensitive soul and to bring on the silly charges of “stalking” and “harassment” you and her other friends are making above.

    Um…have you ever watched mafia movies? Ever seen the fairly common scene where the Don shows the target pictures of his family and/or describes what the wife or child was wearing? And the target goes away thinking “It’s OK–that guy was just needling me because I’m a sensitive soul.”

    Oh, wait, no he doesn’t. He packs up his family and runs to the FBI, or flees the country, or something. Because the implied threat is very clear: I was close enough to see what you were wearing/take a picture of you, and I could have hurt you if I’d wanted to.

    Or consider every movie or TV show where you’ve heard the line “I know where you live”: it’s considered an actionable threat every time. In the context of comments about sexually assaulting someone (hate fucking, lick the sweat off, etc.), I would sure as hell take a “joke” about what the subject was wearing as a threat, and I bet a prosecuter could find at least eleven other people who agreed with me.

    Tell you what, autoadmit: why don’t you run down to the airport and needle some of those sensitive souls of the TSA with jokes about bombs or hijacking a plane? Cause in context, you know, that would be fucking hilarious, too.

  413. Ring General
    Ring General March 8, 2007 at 10:13 pm |

    Although I don’t support all of the actions of my XOXO brethren, some of the things being said here are so ridiculous that it seems like they must be the product of intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps just blatant stupidity.

    The idea that there is some vast network designed to damage the career prospects of women and thereby allow men to materially improve their own prospects is patently absurd. A clear instance of delusional paranoia run amok. Realistically, how would a small handful of guys spread across many schools talking about a small handful of girls spread across many schools serve to provide any material gain? Throwing out charges like that would be a lot more credible if say…most of the female law review members and top female students at a single school were targeted. There isn’t any need to look for a vast conspiracy to find the intentions. What XOXO does is driven by a general spirit of pranksterism and misogyny(some tongue in cheek, some real). For the most part, women are objectified because the posters find objectifying them to be an inherently enjoyable activity. They generally tend to have their fun and move on. The malicious attacks seem to occur mainly when someone has tried to make an issue of it since some posters also get inherent enjoyment from creating drama.

    As for the poor ladies fearing for their lives and what not….XOXO is the same site that has gems of threads like “You haven’t lived until you’ve fucked a newborn kitten” and “99% of 9/11 damage caused by FAGGOT FIREFIGHTERS.” The entire site is basically a game to see who can be the most shockingly tasteless in the wittiest way. Statements about licking the sweat off of a girl or taking cel-camera pictures of her are made in the same spirit, and anyone who takes them seriously is an idiot. For the most part, I avoid discussing innocent individuals myself since there are plenty of ways I can offend without doing damage to a specicif person.

    If anything, the comments on this blog seem closer to what XOXO is being accused of being than XOXO is itself. As I said before, XOXO is motivated by the shock humor arms race. However, the people commenting on this blog are angry and outraged. I get the sense that when they say they’d like to ruin someone’s career or actually stalk them, they are thinking that doing those things is a good idea. IE: I think there are people here who if they had the identity of the guy who made the cel-camera comment and went to his school, would probably go out and snap some pics of him. Some of the responses are borderline fanatical, and the scary part is, I think that unlike XOXO, they’re serious. I’m not sure how we’re going to resolve this, it’s like two worlds colliding, rival nations. It’s a primitive clash venting years of frustrations. Bravely we hope against all hope, there is so much at stake. Seems our freedom’s up against the ropes. Does the crowd understand? Is a East versus West, or man against man. Can any nation stand …alone? In the burning heart, just about to burst. There’s a quest for answers, an unquenchable thirst. In the darkest night, rising like a spire, In the burning heart the unmistakable fire. In the warriors code, there’s no surrender. Though his body says stop his spirit cries never.

  414. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm |

    The rape and hatef*ck claims–are they silly and ridiculous too, AAD? If not about Jill (and I haven’t read all of the Jill threads), there is certainly enough stuff on there about some of the other women to make out a defamation claim. You can’t just take one piece of evidence and say–“well, that’s not illegal/threatening BY ITSELF” and then dismiss the whole.

    A brick is not a wall.

    (Sorry, to all you lawyers out there, couldn’t help myself. Or didn’t.)

    -Iz

  415. ahunt
    ahunt March 8, 2007 at 10:23 pm |

    I’m not sure how we’re going to resolve this, it’s like two worlds colliding, rival nations. It’s a primitive clash venting years of frustrations. Bravely we hope against all hope, there is so much at stake. Seems our freedom’s up against the ropes. Does the crowd understand? Is a East versus West, or man against man. Can any nation stand …alone? In the burning heart, just about to burst. There’s a quest for answers, an unquenchable thirst. In the darkest night, rising like a spire, In the burning heart the unmistakable fire. In the warriors code, there’s no surrender. Though his body says stop his spirit cries never.

    Come again?

    Must be some good smoke, as my eldest would say.

  416. WGAWG
    WGAWG March 8, 2007 at 10:30 pm |

    WGWAG!

  417. Marith
    Marith March 8, 2007 at 10:31 pm |

    Ring General, you guys like to say hilarious things about faggot firefighters, fine, anyone who thinks it’s wrong is stupid and doesn’t get the joke, etc. We understand you and the others on the board feel that way. The one thing you haven’t really spoken to – besides an attempt to protect yourself from criticism by saying you don’t actually use real people’s names – is the use of the identites (names, pictures, etc.) of real female students. If you don’t support their actions, why did you write a massive comment trying to tell Jill to just lighten up? I agree that the assertions that Jill (or others) take pictures of these men to post and ridicule is not the way to go, but I don’t really see why it’s scary. Is it scary only because the people here are angry and the people on xoxo are cavalier? Scary because one group seems to have something invested while the other group doesn’t give a shit?

    Most of the discussion here has centered on the fundamental crappiness of the board’s use of the women’s identities and images. Not our conjectures as to how the vast xoxo conspiracy to ruin the careers of women operates. The part that really makes your whole post ludicrous is the following:

    What XOXO does is driven by a general spirit of pranksterism and misogyny(some tongue in cheek, some real). For the most part, women are objectified because the posters find objectifying them to be an inherently enjoyable activity. They generally tend to have their fun and move on. The malicious attacks seem to occur mainly when someone has tried to make an issue of it since some posters also get inherent enjoyment from creating drama.

    Number one – you admit the misogyny (“some” of it) is real. But then you go on to say the women are stupid to actually take anything seriously because people talk about fucking kittens. I don’t see the correlation. The misogyny is real, and real enough to cause hateful comments, but the women who targeted by name should assume it stops there?

    Number two – your blame the victim ending. When people pay attention to what the misogynists say, they are just making it harder for themselves. I don’t think anyone needs to “try to make an issue” of misogyny. It actually is an issue for a lot of people, as hard as that may be for you to believe (since you believe we should let them “have their fun and move on”). When the misogyny gets specific and starts citing names, it really MAKES itself an issue.

  418. roula
    roula March 8, 2007 at 10:32 pm |

    oh my god.
    i have only read through about half the comments but i just wanted to throw in that reading all this was honest-to-god frightening, and sickening. it’s weird how something so “not-real” like the interwubs can be so really shitty. the whole damn situation is “can’t win for losing” and i am seriously fucking angry from my armchair about the entitlement, carelessness, cruelty, and ultimately the male impunity that is just oozing out of the whole thing. argh. i’m sorry that happened, i don’t know what else to say, how shitty.

  419. appletree  » Blog Archive   » Blog Against Sexism Day: When Objectification Hurts

    [...] wledge and consent, is making its rounds through the blogosphere. The best take comes from Jill, who documents how the forum’s members cyberstalked [...]

  420. Blog Against Sexism Day: When Objectification Hurts « Abstract Nonsense

    [...] deserve a golden star for what we did,” Cohen said. I’m not sure whether admin Jarret Cohen (yes, I’m Googlebombing) was serious when he sai [...]

  421. RKMK
    RKMK March 8, 2007 at 10:37 pm |

    What XOXO does is driven by a general spirit of pranksterism and some tongue in cheek, some real). For the most part, women are objectified because the posters find objectifying them to be an inherently enjoyable activity. They generally tend to have their fun and move on… Statements about licking the sweat off of a girl or taking cel-camera pictures of her are made in the same spirit, and anyone who takes them seriously is an idiot.

    So, if some asshole rednecks drag a(n uppity) black man behind the truck – y’know, because they find it “an inherently enjoyable activity” – that’s… OK? Just because they like doing it?

    “C’mon, n*gger! This is fun! Why ain’t you laughin’! CAN’T YOU TAKE A FUCKIN’ JOKE?”

    These people, I swear. “How dare you get upset when we objectify you and demean you and imply we’d like to rape you and encourage others to do so and post detailed information where they can find you and purposely go out of our way to make you think we’re watching you! Like, you’re so SENSITIVE.”

    The entire site is basically a game to see who can be the most shockingly tasteless in the wittiest way.

    I’m sure you’re aware of this on some level, but… Jon Stewart is “witty.” You, sir, are no Jon Stewart.

  422. JR
    JR March 8, 2007 at 10:38 pm |

    I think there are people here who if they had the identity of the guy who made the cel-camera comment and went to his school, would probably go out and snap some pics of him.

    Why not, it’s legal to do so. In fact, if pretty sure that even in the more privacy minded states, the “public interest” clause would cover it.

  423. bmc90
    bmc90 March 8, 2007 at 10:49 pm |

    Not that I buy into any of this blame the victim stuff, but Jill hasn’t “exposed herself” any more than if her picture were on the back cover of a book of poetry about English tea time that she published. Maybe less. Yup – it’s out there. That does not make it cool to post it on the internet with the author’s home address and sexual assault fantasies. YOU may ‘have your fun and move on’ on these sites, to paraphrase someone above. But what about the truly unhinged reading this stuff? When the poet finds bunnies boiling in the kitchen and some creep sifting through her underware drawer is it her fault for getting out of bed in the morning? Should I stop giving seminars on property rights because it ‘exposes’ me? And why should women suspect there is some kind of vast conspiracy? Could it possibly be because the wage gap is still 70%?

  424. sara
    sara March 8, 2007 at 10:50 pm |

    The most nightmarish aspect (for society at large, not Jill and her fellow female law students) is that the owners of AutoAdmit and the loathsome commenters, those who are actual law students, will probably end up as lawyers defending men against rape and sexual harassment suits. The perfect profession for MRA’s.

  425. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 8, 2007 at 10:55 pm |

    After trawling through the autoadmit threads using google (a process akin to shoveling out the detritus from a septic tank), I cannot find any rape or hate fuck commentary associated with the girls of the t-14 competition, or with any yale student. so I don’t know what the point of associating rape with either the post article or the competition.
    regarding beauty contests: women are understandably conflicted about having their looks appraised. professional women in particular want to be rated on the basis of their performance and competence, not on their looks. in fact, being extremely good looking can handicap a woman in professional life, by raising the chance she won’t be taken seriously. the dreaded Deborah Norville effect. therefore it is doubtful that law students would voluntarily enter a beauty contest, even if they were to get paid, or alternatively, even to raise money for charity. so we will never know who are the best looking women in the t-14.

  426. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 10:55 pm |

    Haha, who are you kidding sara? Autoadmit posters will be making 190k+/year in BIGLAW until their wives run off with the poolboy and they die after doing too much coke off a 19 year old stripper’s double-Ds. Criminal defense is for TTTs.

  427. DontLikeBeingGoggled
    DontLikeBeingGoggled March 8, 2007 at 10:56 pm |

    I didn’t read through all the posts because frankly I dont have that much spare time.
    And before I start let me say that I spend as much time picking holes in feminist ideals as not. Also I didn’t just take the post at face value but checked out AutoAdmit to see what it was like.

    I have to say those slimy scum bags (Posting on AutoAdmit) are both an example of we lawyers are universally despised and why the USA’s approach of freedom of speech without limits is so very very stupid.
    Now I’m not saying that you should allow have censored speech like they do in China, however at the very least if you are going to attack someone by name (or even more provide personal details or images of that person) at the very least have the balls to identify yourself so they can respond in kind.

    While I notice the irony of saying that under an alias but in my deference I am not mentioning anyone by name.

    To not identify yourself when launching such personal attacks not only proves the attacker is a coward as they know they can not defend their statement (either legally or more importantly for all non-lawyers morally) but also shows that despite their claims shows they are not willing to stand up for their belief’s or be held accountable or their actions.

    I know there are laws against slander and copyright infringement (which is what the site is doing with the images).
    But I miss the good old days of the net in the 90’s where if a site or a person acted so badly the web community would just flame, DoS and hack the crap out of it until it fell over.
    Now ofcourse there are laws against doing that.. I miss those simpler times.

  428. GreyLadyBast
    GreyLadyBast March 8, 2007 at 10:59 pm |

    Ring General, stop quoting crappy 80’s montage lyrics. It’s in bad taste, to say the least.

  429. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 8, 2007 at 11:00 pm |

    Hector B.: Off-topic threads aren’t crawled by Google. If more off-topic threads were properly classified (this is the fault of Ciolli and Cohen, the site’s owners) the WaPo article and all this might not have happened.

  430. Stacy
    Stacy March 8, 2007 at 11:04 pm |

    Hector B-

    There are hatef*ck comments about Jill in the threads that have been linked to in this comment thread.

    It’s not hard to find.

  431. Ring General
    Ring General March 8, 2007 at 11:07 pm |

    Number two – your blame the victim ending. When people pay attention to what the misogynists say, they are just making it harder for themselves. I don’t think anyone needs to “try to make an issue” of misogyny. It actually is an issue for a lot of people, as hard as that may be for you to believe (since you believe we should let them “have their fun and move on”). When the misogyny gets specific and starts citing names, it really MAKES itself an issue

    Marith – I’d venture to say that there is no more “real” misogyny on XOXO than there would be among average, randomly selected men. So, it’s absurd to take XOXO seriously unless you’d take generic locker-room banter seriously. It just gets extreme on XOXO because well…everything there is done in an extreme manner. I was only recommending that you let them have their fun and move on since history has shown that things blow over quickly when that happens. I would actually *prefer* that you start a self-righteous crusade since it’s fun to watch.

    And my post wasn’t specific enough because I cut off the end to make room for a surprise segue into the Rocky IV theme song…but I absolutely do not approve of posting names(for private figures), phone numbers, addresses, etc. The posting of publicly available pictures and maybe initials is what I don’t particularly have a problem with.

    Is it scary only because the people here are angry and the people on xoxo are cavalier? Scary because one group seems to have something invested while the other group doesn’t give a shit?

    More or less, this is correct. The intent behind words is a lot more important than the words themselves.

    The rape and hatef*ck claims–are they silly and ridiculous too, AAD? If not about Jill (and I haven’t read all of the Jill threads), there is certainly enough stuff on there about some of the other women to make out a defamation claim. You can’t just take one piece of evidence and say–”well, that’s not illegal/threatening BY ITSELF” and then dismiss the whole.

    I don’t think anyone made any “claims”. I did make an inside-joke reference to a similar XOXO-Jill war that happened last year. Here’s a copy of Jill’s blog entry that popularized the term “hate-fuck”

    http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=331552&forum_id=2#4729650

  432. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 11:18 pm |

    autoadmit deity, the definition of harrassment disagrees with your assessments.

    Lathorpe is saying he knows who Jill is, he sees her around, he knows what she is wearing – it is clearly meant to creep her out to some degree. Gee, maybe Lathorpe is stting right next to her in class, snapping cell phone pictures!

    It would be one thing if Lathorpe lived in Iceland.

    That doesn’t mean that Lathorpe is a genuine stalker – he is likely just some dork who likes to creep people out. But creeping people out *is* harrassment. “I know what you wore today” is very different from “black people like pork chops…”

    Context matters, and the context here is people are talking about seeing the person around, whether or not they would fuck her, what she is wearing at this given moment, taking pictures, etc.

    Your point seems to be that these guys are just assholes. Well they are certainly that, but not only that.

    Let me also address the job prospects aspect of this. I was skeptical of this myself at first, but I’ve seen numerous people make the following sorts of comments:

    These girls did something to deserve this.
    These girls are just future playboy bunnies.
    These girls flaunt themselves.
    These girls are hypocrites for taking pictures of themselves then complaining etc etc
    By posing for a fashion Jill is immodest.

    In some people’s minds there is a guilt by association, that by being the subject of a nasty thread you must have done something and must be nasty yourself.

    I wouldn’t believe it myself if I didn’t see plenty of examples of this behavior.

  433. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:23 pm | *

    I wasn’t wearing pants today — I was wearing a dress with leggings/tights underneath.

    Oh, Jill. Leggings and a skirt? That’s so early 90s.

    Ring General, you probably think you’re clever, what with the denials that the site is “designed” as some sort of conspiracy to block women from getting jobs. Nobody’s said it’s designed that way.

    Hector, pull your head out your ass and read the links given here.

  434. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 11:25 pm |

    About locker room banter – locker room banter about a specific person in earshot of that person would almost certainly be considered harrassment.

    A public website is not a locker room.

    “I would love to fuck Suzy Kolber” is not harrassment in the locker room but saying it constantly while standing right next to her probably is.

    It always amuses me how people think public websites are private clubs. What you say on a public website is much less private than what you shout in an auditorium! (By the way, this applies to places like IBTP as well)

    I can’t type in a URL and immediately be transported to the Raiders locker room, nor can I google for what Randy Moss said to his buddies at half-time.

  435. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:27 pm | *

    The posting of publicly available pictures and maybe initials is what I don’t particularly have a problem with.

    You should have a problem with posting phone numbers and rape threats.

    And I don’t know where you’re gettin gthis idea that there’s some meaningful public/private distinction at play here.

  436. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:29 pm | *

    It always amuses me how people think public websites are private clubs.

    Yes, yes it does.

    And it amuses me when people who think they’re law students don’t have a passing acquaintance with concepts like harassment, annoyance and alarm and good stuff like that.

  437. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 11:30 pm |

    ummm, RG–she was repeating what someone had said about her on the board. They claimed they wanted to hatef*ck her. Get it?

  438. Ring General
    Ring General March 8, 2007 at 11:35 pm |

    Ring General, you probably think you’re clever, what with the denials that the site is “designed” as some sort of conspiracy to block women from getting jobs. Nobody’s said it’s designed that way.

    O RLY?!

    These hatemongers have created an informal “organization” to tear down a group whose members are in part their competition for jobs and a decent life. It also pumps up their own self-esteem — that woman in class who seems so smart is someone who has somehow cheated or is otherwise beneath them.

    My denial pretty much mirrored the allegations made in the above quote. I think you should apologize. I don’t think you attacked me in bad faith, but you’re clearly wrong.

  439. zuzu
    zuzu March 8, 2007 at 11:39 pm | *

    Apologize? For what?

    Dude, “an informal ‘organization’ to tear down” women is not the same thing as “some vast network designed to damage the career prospects of women.”

    Words mean things, little boy.

  440. Ring General
    Ring General March 8, 2007 at 11:47 pm |

    Nice quote parsing, you left out this minor detail that makes the two phrases mean essentially the same thing:

    whose members are in part their competition for jobs

    What distinction are you trying to draw that makes tearing down women in competition for jobs so different from damaging the career prospects of women? And why is the distinction in those phrases so importand that you would want to debate it?

    It’s really not that big of a deal…..you probably skimmed the comments and didn’t read #131, otherwise you certainly wouldn’t have picked this point to debate. It was just a mistake of fact, why not apologize for it and move on? As I said, I don’t think you had any malicious intent, although the latest quote parsing reflects somewhat badly on you.

  441. Random Observer
    Random Observer March 8, 2007 at 11:51 pm |

    Lathorpe admits to copyright infringement in his posts on AA as well:

    Noo, dude. I’m moving all the pictures onto imageshack.us and then inserting the hotlinks to the pages.

    Lots of the pictures are now on multiple hosts.

    I’m doing all the work now, not those two pussies who ran away once GTO said we were going to get sued for copyright infringement.

    What a fucking dope. This guy will make an awesome lawyer.

  442. Ismone
    Ismone March 8, 2007 at 11:52 pm |

    HB–If you read about the specific women by name (not t14) you will find comments about raping some of the current contestants. If you search for “rape” you probably won’t find anything, b/c the first comment would have to have “rape” in the title. They’re there. And I won’t link or repeat them.

  443. Marith
    Marith March 8, 2007 at 11:56 pm |

    More or less, this is correct. The intent behind words is a lot more important than the words themselves.

    I don’t disagree with that general idea, but it’s fundentally flawed if you attempt to put it into practice. If I’m in class with a kid who thinks it’s funny to say he wants to punch another kid in the face, when he in fact doesn’t want to do so, the other kid hearing him say this may say the same in return and actually want to do so, either because he is angry or because he wants to protect himself. Our words have consequences and can incite action in others, which is why it’s generally wise to think before you speak/write when you are talking about another person. This is why laws exist with regard to people threatening other people – it’s not an okay thing to do, even if the person doing the threatening just thinks its funny and doesn’t actually intend to follow through. As far as I know, making the threat is grounds enough for action (be it a restraining order or whathave you). There doesn’t have to be some follow up to prove the individual is actually entirely poised to make the threat a reality.

    From what I’ve read, most of the posts on autoadmit are one-liners, which means a poster who says something like “i’d like to lick sweat off her face” could be kidding or could be serious, but it’s not really up to the rest of the world to magically intuit his intention because he hasn’t actually indicated in one way or another. You’re apparently arguing that the board itself is the context, but you admit that some people use it in the spirit of just being outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, and some people use it to air actual ideas or emotions. I don’t understand why you feel qualified to say commenters here are being malicious and intend to carry out their suggested actions (as opposed to just getting something off their chest and moving on, or just trying to be funny) but you deny that analysis when it’s applied to posters on xoxo.

    And finally, Random Observer already responded really well to the locker room analogy, but again, if I were towel girl for the guys’ locker room and I overheard them saying they wanted to do such and such to me sexually, yes I might feel freaked out. Clearly, if I’m not in the locker room, I’m none the wiser and therefore have no cause for concern. But I wouldn’t assume that the locker room was some kind of free pass zone where guys could say crazy things about me (or anyone) that they actually didn’t mean.

    Does responding to you qualify as a self-righteous crusade? I’m not sure how much more work I’m willing to do, so I’m afraid that might have to suffice.

  444. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 9, 2007 at 12:01 am |

    the only “hate fuck” citations on autoadmit (except for one relating to Ashlee Simpson) come from a feministe blog post from January of 2006, copied over to autoadmit, in which Jill (apparently) references an autoadmit post that no longer exists (or is no longer googleable) in which someone wanted to hatefuck her. most likely, the would-be hatefucker of jill has given up his quest due to lapse of time

  445. Feministe » Lazy Blogging Against Sexism

    [...] , they want to dissociate themselves from assholes like these, feign shock and horror that similar-such behavior could be occuring in our most elite halls of l [...]

  446. Ismone
    Ismone March 9, 2007 at 12:07 am |

    Not all of them are googleable.

  447. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 12:10 am | *

    Hector, put down the Google.

  448. NormanNYC
    NormanNYC March 9, 2007 at 12:17 am |

    It’s clear that they violated your copyright when they posted your pictures without your permission.

    In addition it’s a violation of your privacy and publicity rights to post your picture in certain situations, and this may be one of them. Photographers carry model releases; they can’t just take a picture of someone and print it on the front page of the New York Times Magazine without permission.

    Under the CDA the ISP has no liability as long as the ISP takes the photos down after you give notice, but the scumbag who posted the photos (“Scumbag”) has violated your intellectual property rights and you have a cause of action against him. See Barrett v. Rosenthal.

    You can serve the ISP with a demand for all the information they have on Scumbag to help you track him down. The RIAA tracks people down who are sharing copyrighted music files. It’s possible to get an untraceable ISP or blog account but most people haven’t taken those precautions, and you can usually track them down.

    Once you’ve got their names, you can sue them for copyright violations. You can go as far as you like, but my feeling is that when you’ve caught somebody in a trap like that, you might as well be charitable. The public identification should be punishment enough. I don’t know if a bar would refuse admission for stunts like that (I doubt it), but their are certainly a lot of top-tier firms that wouldn’t want an associate around with such poor judgment. And that’s going to be the first hit when an employer Googles *his* name.

  449. Susan
    Susan March 9, 2007 at 12:44 am |

    zuzu:

    people who think they’re law students

    I think you’ve nailed it. I mean, to quote some congressman or other, “This can’t be their ‘A’ team!”

  450. Jeff Fecke
    Jeff Fecke March 9, 2007 at 1:13 am |

    Waaaaaay back there, Doctor Science observed:

    I am boggled that someone running a high-traffic site could be so ignorant of basic netiquette.

    No doubt. I remember figuring this stuff back when I was rocking the alt.* hierarchy. You don’t post people’s personal stuff, *especially* if they’re not around to respond. If someone asks you to pull pictures or stories or other property of theirs, you pull it, *immediately*. No questions asked. If arguments arise, you kick out the arguers.

    Modding isn’t easy, nor is it particularly rewarding, save for the fact that unmodded boards inevitably devolve into this kind of crap. And that’s good for nobody, not even the board itself–as I guaran-fucking-tee you that more than a few 2Ls are now wondering if AutoAdmit isn’t more trouble than it’s worth…and maybe they should just stop wasting time and go back to work on their Law Review article anyhow.

    As for the idiot “deity” and Rocky IV aficionados who go on and on ad nauseum about how this is just offending people for the sake of offending–look, if you’re going to traffic in offensive humor, you can’t be surprised when people get fucking offended. I’m not saying offensive humor can’t work–cf. Blazing Saddles–but it usually works when there’s some evident sympathy for the targets involved. That’s why “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride” is funny–because Big Gay Al, for all his Big Gayness, is a hero in the show. That’s why you guys, aside from all your freaky stalkerishness, just aren’t funny.

  451. long time listener, first time caller
    long time listener, first time caller March 9, 2007 at 1:19 am |

    As an occasional poster on “that” site what’s happened to these women makes me sick. The site owners like to boast about freedom of speech, free exchange of ideas, etc. but have taken what I feel is a somewhat hypocritical stance with regard to “outing.” There is a point where lines are crossed and I’m sickened when xoxo crosses over to affect real people. Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure where the legal lines about hosting the content is (perhaps they should be changed), but in my opinion a moral line has been crossed. From my understanding there is no absolute right of free speech, but I’m somewhat ambivalent as to the amount of fault that lies with the hosts who allow people to say these things. I truly hope that these posters are just a few bad apples.
    Oh and Jill, I do like your sense of humor: Vote for me “I fuck on the first date.” LOL

  452. La Fille Torpille
    La Fille Torpille March 9, 2007 at 1:48 am |

    The only argument the autoadmit kids seem to be coming up with is “Well, the character of the board isn’t serious, so why should you take these comments seriously?” Basically, a “boys will be boys” defense. However, this argument falls apart because the “mood” of the board may not apply to those posting threatening material. The board is 50-50 serious-ridiculous, so how are people expected to know if threats are serious or ridiculous?

    Every woman I’ve linked to this story said she would be terrified if the same thing happened to her. I guess that’s what happens when you structure your life around fear of murder, dismemberment, and rape, like the media tells us to.

    Basically, women can’t:
    1) drink alcohol
    2) post pictures of themselves on facebook
    3) leave the house… etc!
    without the “she’s partially responsible for what happened to her!” comments.

    It may be free speech to yell “FIRE!” in a movie theater, and you can claim up and down that it was a joke, but your ass is still going to jail.

  453. rrrrrrrr
    rrrrrrrr March 9, 2007 at 1:49 am |

    http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com

    Anthony ciolli is full of shit.

  454. blog against sexism day »  Young Anabaptist Radicals

    [...] h easier than acting positively in the first place. And it’s not radical to boot. No golden stars for that. I do theatre. I write and direct plays. [...]

  455. mythago
    mythago March 9, 2007 at 2:10 am |

    The most nightmarish aspect (for society at large, not Jill and her fellow female law students) is that the owners of AutoAdmit and the loathsome commenters, those who are actual law students, will probably end up as lawyers defending men against rape and sexual harassment suits

    Except that they’re dumb as stumps, and will lose.

  456. SaunteringFiend
    SaunteringFiend March 9, 2007 at 3:05 am |

    Stay strong.

  457. astute observer
    astute observer March 9, 2007 at 3:32 am |

    jill…did you ever think that part of the reason people argue with you more than with others is because you’re incredibly sanctimonious and annoying?

    honestly.

  458. Marcus Ald
    Marcus Ald March 9, 2007 at 4:14 am |

    Sorry but I don’t see how this is any different than women taking pictures of men in subways and other public places and then maligning the men they take the pictures of. It doesn’t matter whether anyone has something that is considered socially acceptable or not, this army of photo taking cell phone morons can choose to be judge jury and executioner on their own. It’s like 1984 but this time it’s everyone watching everyone. In this prudish and obsessively hate/violence based nation any slander related to sexual matters can both destroy people’s careers and for some be a death sentence by way of suicide. Because of this harsh insensitivity our culture has towards men and dehumanizing them into machines without emotions, almost twice as many men commit suicide in our nation as do women. Sorry girls but you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to go about taking photos of men in public and then maligning them then you have to be prepared for it to happen to you. Either way this is a violation of privacy and privacy of the non public individual (not organization or corporation) must take precedence over internet and digital freedom in that it’s about their safety and security.

  459. rotten apples
    rotten apples March 9, 2007 at 6:10 am |

    rest assured, when i finally complete my faustian pact with mephistopheles and acquire the one ring of power, there will be a great nashing of teeth and totalling of sums for these thugs.

    that which is done in darkness shall be drawn out into the light…

  460. Anonymous
    Anonymous March 9, 2007 at 6:54 am |

    You mention a Jarret Cohen… if that’s the one that’s showing up prominently in Google searches, there’s an interesting thing I should note. Someone who worked in the same place as the Cohen in the Google searches was fired a few years ago for posting to Usenet while at work. If those employers take Usenet that seriously, surely they’d be interested to know about Cohen’s web page and “contest”.

    Just a thought.

  461. micheyd
    micheyd March 9, 2007 at 7:53 am |

    Every harasser/abuser I’ve either encountered or known of uses the “I wasn’t serious/Come on, take it as a compliment/Stop being so hysterical” defense.

    Maybe it works with one comment…but when you have oodles of them, it’s just silly to deny the intent.

  462. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 8:40 am | *

    Haha, who are you kidding sara? Autoadmit posters will be making 190k+/year in BIGLAW until their wives run off with the poolboy and they die after doing too much coke off a 19 year old stripper’s double-Ds. Criminal defense is for TTTs.

    Man, what you don’t know about the practice of law…

  463. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 8:41 am | *

    Oh, and BTW, pumpkin, the really big money is in investment banking.

  464. evil fizz
    evil fizz March 9, 2007 at 8:58 am | *

    Every harasser/abuser I’ve either encountered or known of uses the “I wasn’t serious/Come on, take it as a compliment/Stop being so hysterical” defense.

    My preferred response to “It was a joke!” is “Why would you say something so stupid, even in jest?”

  465. Mogg
    Mogg March 9, 2007 at 9:34 am |

    I tried to read through most of the posts. I find some of them to be quite far fetched, especially the ones about stalking and harassment. in regards to the women from the T14 contest and the WAPO article, is there any evidence that the posters intended these women to read their posts? also the judgments in the above posts deal with autoadmit as if its one individual, its not. its a collection of individuals and you would need to treat each posters seperately. i understand the response to autoadmit being disgust and finding it creepy. I just don’t know if thinking something is creepy is the same as being harassed

  466. La Fille Torpille
    La Fille Torpille March 9, 2007 at 9:42 am |

    Marcus Aid:

    Because of this harsh insensitivity our culture has towards men and dehumanizing them into machines without emotions, almost twice as many men commit suicide in our nation as do women.

    Cite your sources. The statistic may be true, but your explanation for this phenomenon is pulled directly out of your ass.

    If you are going to go about taking photos of men in public and then maligning them then you have to be prepared for it to happen to you.

    I wasn’t aware I was on the blog womentakingphotosofmeninpublicandthenmaligningthem.blogspot.com. Unlike autoadmit, there have been no photos, no addresses, no nothing here.

  467. Susan
    Susan March 9, 2007 at 9:48 am |

    Marcus: Sorry but I don’t see how this is any different
    Mogg: is there any evidence that the posters intended these women to read their posts? … I just don’t know if thinking something is creepy is the same as being harassed

    mythago is right: they are dumb as stumps.

  468. micheyd
    micheyd March 9, 2007 at 9:51 am |

    I think Marcus is referring to Hollaback NYC, where women take pictures of those men (poor oppressed dears!) who harass women or grope them on the subway. Funny he should mention it…

  469. Mogg
    Mogg March 9, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    Susan 486

    good job throwing out insults with no response. probably feels good

  470. Progressive Gold  » Blog Archive   » Comment of The Day

    [...] o another comment on his own post on lawyer Jil of Feministe’s law school and online harassment by rightwing fuckwits: Sifu Tweety Says: March 7th, [...]

  471. Sara
    Sara March 9, 2007 at 9:58 am |

    Given the outlandish nature of posts on autoadmit, it’s unlikely a phrase like “i’ll force myself on her, most definitely. can’t wait to meet the young lady.” would “place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”

    Unlikely? Spoken like a man. Probably one who thinks that women who *do* get raped must’ve done something to deserve it.

    As women, our bodies and sexualities are consider public domain – we have a stunning illustration of that right here with Mr. “Men only hate women when women say no to them after men work up the courage to ask them out, becuase if we go to all that trouble, it is unkind to actually have an opinion of your own, girlie.”

    And so when a man, an anonymous man who knows where I work out and perhaps knows more, says he feels he has the right to force himself on me, it is very reasonable to fear imminent serious bodily injury.

    Poll random women on the street. I think you’ll find it quite likely that many, if not most, women agree. We’ve all been raised on warning stories of women who put themselves out in public and were attacked, we’ve all been warned about “internet crazies” and how to protect ourselves and our children from them. Some internet crazy says something like that, even in the context of a hog-farm runoff tank like xoxo, it is pretty reasonable to start worrying.

  472. bluefish A
    bluefish A March 9, 2007 at 10:00 am |

    Sorry but I don’t see how this is any different than women taking pictures of men in subways and other public places and then maligning the men they take the pictures of.

    you’re thinking of hollaback nyc. this is feministe where, if you’ll notice, there are no cellphone pics of men matched with derogatory comments.
    guess what, little boys? women don’t like being called stupid bitches, ugly whores or fat cunts. guess what else?
    women don’t like having pictures taken from their personal accounts and then reposted somewhere else so a bunch of guys can sit around and debate her the merits of her fuckability.
    you know what else?
    women also son’t like comments about being “hatefucked” directed at them by some random guy hiding in anonymity in the intertubes.
    it’s creepy and a tad scary, because guess what?
    violence against women is a reality as is stalking and rape.
    the little boys at autoadmit are venting online, sure, but can you blame us if it reminds us of everytime we are threatened verbally or physically by a man face-to-face.
    we are not the ones who are in the wrong. we are simply reacting to the ridiculous shit you little boys at autoadmit dish out.
    what is difficult to understand about this?

  473. Susan
    Susan March 9, 2007 at 10:04 am |

    Mogg:

    good job

    Thanks! If you can’t keep up by this point in the conversation, it’s all you deserve.

  474. Mogg
    Mogg March 9, 2007 at 10:11 am |

    Susan

    bad job

    what am i not keeping up with?

  475. Sarah
    Sarah March 9, 2007 at 10:30 am |

    Marcus, if it is HollabacNYC you’re referring to, you might want to familiarize yourself with the purpose of the website. Women “out” men who harass or sexually assault them in public! But I’m sure you already knew that, didn’t you?
    It goes like this:

    Man victimizes woman. Woman fights back by turning the tables on man. YOU claim that it’s the poor MEN being victimized

    Huh? Anyone who claims that men aren’t trying to shove women out of the public sphere is kidding themself.

  476. Stop Clicking on XO!
    Stop Clicking on XO! March 9, 2007 at 10:37 am |

    Can you guys stop clicking on XO and the other links? You’re just increasing their visibility everytime you link to them from a highly-ranked website such as this one. That’s how Google works, and you’re just helping them increase their PageRank.

  477. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub March 9, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    Autoadmit deity: I encourage you to read the part of the article where the assberets on your little board posted the names and contact information for the women, and in at least one instance, encouraged a poster to take pictures of one of the women while she was at the gym.

    Try again, dipshit.

  478. replayable  » Blog Archive   » Hi!
    replayable » Blog Archive » Hi! March 9, 2007 at 11:30 am |

    [...] Anthony Ciolli and Jarrett Cohen are abusive, sexist stalker-wanna-bes.  Read about it here, then pass it along.  Let’s make sure that everyone [...]

  479. Norah
    Norah March 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm |

    Some guys simply do not get it.
    The other day I came home to an obscene phone call on my vm. The caller knew my name, insisted I knew who he was, and proceeded to tell me all the things he wanted to do to me. But I suppose autoadmit deity, Ring General, Marcus Aid et al. would argue that it was a harmless prank caller who was only being offensive for the sake of offensiveness. Not ’cause he, you know, meant it, you stupid bitch! Jeez. Anyway, I’m listed in the phone book, so it’s my own damn fault.

    Either you don’t get it, which is scary, or you’re pretending not to get it, which is really scary. If you say disgusting things like the garbage on xoxo, you are going to get a whole shitload of reaction.

    Marcus Aid,

    Sorry but I don’t see how this is any different than women taking pictures of men in subways and other public places and then maligning the men they take the pictures of.

    Here you go. Enjoy.

  480. bmc90
    bmc90 March 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm |

    What about putting these guys on Dontdatehimgirl. I think we owe it to the sisterhood.

  481. bmc90
    bmc90 March 9, 2007 at 12:55 pm |

    Ring, the lyrics to the theme song for Rocky IV? We have a winner in the new catagory of supergoober. Yikes.

    And I do so hope that the site keeps on insulting law school deans. Believe me, those folks will find a way to make life very unpleasant for the students engaging in this stuff. Do you think you will ever know if the dean picks up the telephone and tells the managing partner at that big firm to take a pass on you? You will just get your lovely little rejection letter along with everyone else IDIOTS.

  482. Stop Clicking on XO!
    Stop Clicking on XO! March 9, 2007 at 1:13 pm |

    Comment #494.

    Is there any safeguard to assure that the men accused of being sexual deviants on hollaback actually guilty? That is what would concern me: anyone who posts on that site can destroy the reputation of a schmoe without any due process.

    Kind of like what everyone is complaining about here.

  483. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 1:18 pm |

    Sooo…ummm…is the Feministe community going to do any activism or not?

    The Daily Kos community has gotten advertisers out in the real world to pull out from Ann Coulter’s programs and gotten newspapers out in the real world to pull her column because they were horrified by the abusive way she talked about people.

    Can we even have a discussion about whether or not we’re going to try to get big law firms and risk insurance companies to oppose the abusive talk on AutoAdmit?

    Does it need a new front-page post or something to get people to stop talking about legal technicalities and start talking about whether or not the Feministe community is going to engage in this project?

  484. La Fille Torpille
    La Fille Torpille March 9, 2007 at 1:19 pm |

    I’m now a fan of HollabackNYC. Thanks y’all for bringing it up. :D

  485. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 1:21 pm | *

    Nice guilt trip there, Katie.

  486. Natalia
    Natalia March 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm |

    There a long line of humor that relies primarily on the transgression of boundaries and the violations of taboos, from Rabelais to South Park

    Rabelais? South Park? Don’t flatter yourself.

  487. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 1:28 pm |

    zuzu Says:
    Nice guilt trip there, Katie.

    ~blush~

    I’m just really sold on ekf’s idea but have no idea how to go about it, what such a letter would be most persuasive if it looked like, etc. I’d love to see such discussion and then do some of that writing.

  488. Margaret
    Margaret March 9, 2007 at 1:37 pm |

    What about putting these guys on Dontdatehimgirl. I think we owe it to the sisterhood.

    So what? Women have abused the internet too. What’s your point?

    http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/08/dontdatehimgirl.html

  489. autoadmit deity
    autoadmit deity March 9, 2007 at 1:46 pm |

    I’m not sure what else there is to do. But if you have suggestions, I’d love to hear ‘em.

    Why don’t you guys try to help the so-called victims by asking Google to remove the links to xoxo that come up when googling their names.

    Or can I expect to see Sergey Brin and Larry Page on dontdatehimgirl?

  490. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 1:51 pm |

    Jill Says:
    I would love to do some sort of outreach to firms, but honestly, I don’t think they’re going to care.

    :-(

  491. Ismone
    Ismone March 9, 2007 at 1:53 pm |

    AAD–Are you capable of giving a helpful suggestion without being a condescending jerk, or is that beyond you?

    Just asking.

  492. Nx
    Nx March 9, 2007 at 2:05 pm |

    regarding firms: of course they’ll care. Title VII (employment discrimination) law would not be happy (so to speak) about their reliance on sexist and racist criteria in their hiring decisions.

  493. Ismone
    Ismone March 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm |

    Jill–See comment 266. You might want to complain (and so might the other named women) to xoxo’s service provider. There are threats, links to photos, and defamatory statements (x is a whore, y has herpes etc.) that are pretty easy to find on the thread, so maybe the service provider will shut them down.

  494. Kate
    Kate March 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    When I was in college, a hot new message board came to campus and was full of this sort of crap. My then-boyfriend and I were often the target of a lot of anonymously written hate-speech, and I was seriously uncomfortable sometimes in the cafeteria knowing that, somewhere, maybe in this very room, was someone who was writing nasty things about me online. That maybe they were watching me eat my dinner and going to go back to their room and say I ate like a pig and was fat. It’s not the same, but I wanted to let you know that there are other people out there who would back you up about how paranoid you get to feeling when people are acting in this way.

    I hope you can find a way to legally have yourself removed from the site. I wonder if you could copyright your name (yourself?) and then sue them for copyright violation.

    Do we know who hosts the site? Could we petition them online?

  495. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 2:08 pm |

    I don’t know if law firms would just blow this off or not. I think the racism, especially, would rankle most successful firms. There’s also competition to recruit the best students, many of whom are increasingly visible minorities, and I doubt any firm wants to project an image of themselves as a bunch of racist hicks slapping each other on the back for calling people racist and misogynist names. I also doubt that any firms want contorversy, and their corporate clients sure as hell don’t want controversy.

    Getting law school deans involved as well is a good idea. This sort of vile garbage will not fly in an academic setting, and there will be far more and far more effective pressure brought from within those institutions.

  496. Hold them accountable
    Hold them accountable March 9, 2007 at 2:09 pm |

    For anyone who doubts that posting threatening messages to a message board is, in fact, considered harassment under NY Law, I suggest you look into:

    688 N.Y.S.2d 384
    179 Misc.2d 903, 688 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99109
    (Cite as: 179 Misc.2d 903, 688 N.Y.S.2d 384)

    Criminal Court, City of New York,
    Queens County.
    The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
    v.
    Alan MUNN, Defendant.

    Feb. 9, 1999.

    As you will see, the state of New York most definetely views threatening memssages posted to a public message board to be in violation of New York Law.

    The “locker room banter” analogy does not hold here. The main distinction being in the spoken word versus written communication.

    Jill, if you looking for what to do, I suggest you contact the the local DA and have them look into it. Especially considering that you believe one or more of the offending parties may reside in the state of New York. This kind of behavior is against the law, and the state of New York is one of the most aggressive in the country for dealing with cyber crime, particularly as it relates to online harassment…they take this stuff very seriously.

  497. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 2:23 pm |

    Right, it would just be a matter of proving that they relied on those things in their hiring decisions, and that that reliance constitutes sexism/racism. Which would be difficult, I think…

    But getting AutoAdmit a general-purpose bad reputation at the top 100 law firms in the country and getting it a bad reputation among insurance carriers doesn’t require proving anything.

    Plus, if their action once they know about its reputation just happens to be “put it on the no-go-at-work filter list,” well, that’s perhaps 5 fewer people in the office reading quite as much of that stuff. And the less they read, the less it impacts their subconsciouses. That’s got to be an improvement, right?

  498. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm |

    (In other words, I think “these boards exist and they’re really bad” letter-writing would make the world a better place than not sending such letters at all, even if one would like to be able to go farther.)

  499. Ismone
    Ismone March 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm |

    From what I read at autoadmit (the sticky titled “XO is going to be fine”) it looks like their service provider has threatened to shut them down and they are going to move. Once the move is complete, I think complaining to their new service provider and keeping it up until they delete the defamatory and infringing content is the way to go.

  500. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm |

    The only “strategy” I can think of for dealing with these creeps involves the song “Stuck in the Middle With You.” But then, I’ve never claimed to be anything other than a violent psychopath.

  501. Doesn't this scare you?
    Doesn't this scare you? March 9, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    # Katie Says:
    March 9th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    But getting AutoAdmit a general-purpose bad reputation at the top 100 law firms in the country and getting it a bad reputation among insurance carriers doesn’t require proving anything.

    Plus, if their action once they know about its reputation just happens to be “put it on the no-go-at-work filter list,” well, that’s perhaps 5 fewer people in the office reading quite as much of that stuff. And the less they read, the less it impacts their subconsciouses. That’s got to be an improvement, right?

    This is scary. Why do you get to choose what people get to impact their subconscious with?

    Bigger point: Why aren’t you up in arms against the dontdatehimgirl.com site? Double-standards are double-standards.

    Anonymity serves a purpose. XO broke the Simpson Thacher raises. Would anyone post that information non-anonymously?

    Ask yourselves: would you post here under your real name? Most of you have not.

  502. Shankar Gupta
    Shankar Gupta March 9, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    (type them into a separate window, please — I don’t want to give them traffic from a higher-ranked site)

    AFAIK, this is not how it works. PageRank takes into account links from higher-ranked sites, but not traffic or clickthrough rates. So if you want to keep XOXO down, avoid linking them, but you don’t have to worry about typing them into the Location bar from this window.

  503. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 9, 2007 at 3:24 pm |

    Further, the guy who owns AutoAdmit/xoxo (Jarret) apparently also owns 4lawschool-dot-com, 4lawschool-dot-net, and LawStudentParadise-dot-come (type them into a separate window, please — I don’t want to give them traffic from a higher-ranked site). According to an AutoAdmit thread, that’s how they make a lot of their money — by selling ads on those sites. So those advertisers might also be a good place to start. It looks like Yahoo provides a lot of ads for them…

    Great idea. Penalize the benign, moderated, on-topic discussion boards for the sins of the unmoderated board. That will surely motivate the owners to clean up their unmoderated board.

  504. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 9, 2007 at 3:25 pm |

    I’m glad to hear that the webhost is TOSing them. Jill, if you or any of your gang need help with the web-tech end, email me.

    As I’ve said, whether their behavior is illegal or not, it is against standard Internet practice and is likely to be a TOS violation almost anywhere. Their only recourse would be to do their own hosting, which makes me laugh evilly because none of these dudes strike me as having that kind of know-how.

    I forsee a future career for them — assuming they get barred — defending spammers.

    The law school dean/faculty approach is also a good one. Remember to keep emphasizing that posting personal information in public is against good ‘net practices for a reason: those of us with years of experience know that it is incitement to harrass, and the connection between such posts and harrassment is so strong that the posts themselves are an effective form of harrassment.

  505. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm | *

    This is scary. Why do you get to choose what people get to impact their subconscious with?

    Bigger point: Why aren’t you up in arms against the dontdatehimgirl.com site? Double-standards are double-standards.

    Let me explain this s-l-o-w-l-y: the owner of autoadmit and the other sites is enabling and encouraging the stalking and harassment of Jill and other law students.

    The owner of dontdatehimgirl.com is not.

    BTW, I can see which firm you’re posting from.

  506. John Protevi
    John Protevi March 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    Great idea. Penalize the benign, moderated, on-topic discussion boards for the sins of the unmoderated board. That will surely motivate the owners to clean up their unmoderated board.

    Yes, that is a great idea. You hit the revenue-producing area of the operation. Why wouldn’t that provide excellent motivation?

  507. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    Doesn’t this scare you? Says:
    Bigger point: Why aren’t you up in arms against the dontdatehimgirl.com site? Double-standards are double-standards.

    Frankly, I am thinking I’m against that site, too, ever since I read Margaret (#508)’s link.

    That site lists some fantastic reasons for supporting HollaBack while disliking DontDateHimGirl.com.

    I’m sorry you thought I had a double standard–in fact, I don’t believe I do. I didn’t imply by my silence that I approved of DontDateHimGirl.com, but I can see how in the shuffle of 500+ comments it would look that way.

    Anyway, if I figure out an appropriately targeted place to mention that DontDateHimGirl.com “exists and is really bad,” I suppose I should. I guess I’m not “up in arms” because I don’t know what real-world structured group has a similar pool of participants as that site. But it’s not because of a double standard. It’s simply a difference in clarity of where to go next with the two sites.

    Fair point.

  508. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 3:33 pm |

    This is scary. Why do you get to choose what people get to impact their subconscious with?

    We don’t, dipshit. But when we see a piece of shit, we get to call it a piece of shit, and ask others if they agree with our assessment. Why do these shitstains get to harrass people anonymously?

    Bigger point: Why aren’t you up in arms against the dontdatehimgirl.com site? Double-standards are double-standards.

    I’ve never heard of this site, but I’m guessing most of the guys featured on it can figure out who’s posting on them. There are about a dozen other salient differences, but I don’t have time to explain them to a dishonest little worm like you.

    Anonymity serves a purpose. XO broke the Simpson Thacher raises. Would anyone post that information non-anonymously?

    Yes, if only there were some way for people to get information into the press while remaining anonymous. Damnit, man, can’t we think of anything?

    Ask yourselves: would you post here under your real name? Most of you have not.

    Okay, follow the bouncing ball, shit-for-brains: no one here is threatening or stalking anyone. No one is indulging in violent fantasies. Well, except me. But that’s just some of that creative hyperbole we keep hearing about. Seriously, even people who are angry don’t know who these people are, and aren’t posting details about their personal lives and daily routines. They aren’t harassing anyone. You’re either pretending not to understand this, or you’re really too stupid to get it. Either way, there’s no point in “engaging” with you any further.

  509. Doesn't this scare you?
    Doesn't this scare you? March 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm |

    Okay, follow the bouncing ball, shit-for-brains: no one here is threatening or stalking anyone. No one is indulging in violent fantasies. Well, except me. But that’s just some of that creative hyperbole we keep hearing about. Seriously, even people who are angry don’t know who these people are, and aren’t posting details about their personal lives and daily routines. They aren’t harassing anyone. You’re either pretending not to understand this, or you’re really too stupid to get it. Either way, there’s no point in “engaging” with you any further.

    Thank you for making my point, you coward.

  510. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 3:42 pm |

    What point, dumbass? Hey, what do you call the guy who graduates last in his law school class? A lawyer.

  511. Random Lawyer
    Random Lawyer March 9, 2007 at 3:43 pm |

    Let me explain this s-l-o-w-l-y: the owner of autoadmit and the other sites is enabling and encouraging the stalking and harassment of Jill and other law students.

    The owner of dontdatehimgirl.com is not.

    Huh??

    That makes no sense – the owners of xo have said they find the posts in bad taste and in no way called for such posts. Additionally they convinced the creator of the T14 site to turn it over to them so it could be shut down.

    I agree that their administration of the board allows for these type of horrible posts, but isn’t that completly true of dontdatehimgirl.com? By hosting the site and not deleting posts when asked, how is that different that what xo has done.

    Also, to #532. The real fear of that site is not people posting true (or exaggerated) things about you such that you could figure out who posted them. If I (or anyone else) decided that I hated someone I could use that site to slander them and there is nothing they could do to stop it. You don’t have to actually be someone’s ex-gf to post on that site.

  512. Katie
    Katie March 9, 2007 at 3:43 pm |

    Which point?
    He didn’t threaten you or post your personal information.
    *confused*

  513. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm | *

    Sorry, when did dontdatehimgirl become relevant here?

    Let’s not pull the old “but women do the same thing and they’re just as bad as men and why are you picking on men unfaiiiiirly!” thing, okay?

    We’re talking about autoadmit.

  514. Doesn't this scare you?
    Doesn't this scare you? March 9, 2007 at 3:48 pm |

    # Katie Says:
    March 9th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Which point?
    He didn’t threaten you or post your personal information.
    *confused*

    Would he have posted the same comment if he were not anonymous? If not, then he is a coward hiding behind his anonymity.

    The xoxohth.com posters are nuts, but so is that guy.

  515. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 3:50 pm |

    Okay, Random Lawyer, I don’t know anything about this don’tdatehim site and certainly have no interest in defending it. But it sounds like it’s wrong for all the same reasons as this xo site (although there are obvious differences between saying someone gave you herpes and mentioning details about where you saw someone, taking pictures of them without their consent, etc. I think both are pretty revolting). Why are people bringing it up here? Jill’s post wasn’t about how great this don’tdate site is, nor is there any reason to assume she supports or condones it. It’s a pure red herring.

  516. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm |

    Look, dipshit, first I congratulate you on your truly momumental stupidity. But people posting under an ad hoc pseudonym don’t get to attack others for posting under a pseudonym they use all over the internets…are you there yet?

  517. Random Lawyer
    Random Lawyer March 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm |

    Sorry, when did dontdatehimgirl become relevant here?

    Let’s not pull the old “but women do the same thing and they’re just as bad as men and why are you picking on men unfaiiiiirly!” thing, okay?

    We’re talking about autoadmit.

    Nice strategy – when you clearly make a wrong comment, just claim the subject was irrelevant and move on. You will make a fine lawyer.

  518. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 9, 2007 at 3:59 pm |

    Generally, if people are punished for good behavior as well as bad, they are not incented to behave well, the more so if behaving well takes effort and misbehaving does not. Also, those who punish good behavior the same as they do bad behavior are widely viewed as psychotic. Read “Mommie Dearest” for a good example of this.

  519. Random Lawyer
    Random Lawyer March 9, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    at #539

    I think the point is to show that this is a bigger epidemic of the internets and not limited to the filth on xo (or unfortunately men). If anything this supports Jill’s post that something needs to be done abotu situations like these, or else things will keep getting further out of control.

  520. Doesn't this scare you?
    Doesn't this scare you? March 9, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    # Heraclitus (Jeff) Says:
    March 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Look, dipshit, first I congratulate you on your truly momumental stupidity. But people posting under an ad hoc pseudonym don’t get to attack others for posting under a pseudonym they use all over the internets…are you there yet?

    Wait. But you’re still anonymous, right? So there is no difference between you and me.

  521. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub March 9, 2007 at 4:05 pm |

    Oh, for fuck’s sake.

    A pissy dating site (and there are similar sites for het men) isn’t the same as a message board that gives the address and phone number of private citizens. It isn’t the same as posting about when someone goes to the gym and encouraging people to take surreptitious photos of them.

    You don’t like DDHG? Great. Why you can’t criticize them AND see the utterly fucked up nature of what autoadmit is doing is beyond me. Well, actually, it isn’t. Your attitude reeks of defensiveness and entitlement. Get the fuck over yourself.

  522. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub March 9, 2007 at 4:11 pm |

    Let me get this straight–encouraging people to stalk women, lying about women, and posting women’s personal information online with rape threats is no big deal. Saying mean things about an ex boyfriend or girlfriend is the end of the world, and equal to this, and we should all stop the thread right now ZOMG!! and focus on this very important thing.

    Fuck off.

    Please note, inbred morons: I post under a pseudonym, but I don’t post people’s personal contact information online, I don’t lie about them, and I don’t encourage people to stalk them. If you can’t figure out the difference between a pseudoanonymous poster/blogger who doesn’t out people and encourage that crap, and a spinless piece of roach dung who does, then you’re beyond stupid.

  523. sifl
    sifl March 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm |

    Bigger point: Why aren’t you up in arms against the dontdatehimgirl.com site? Double-standards are double-standards.

    Probably because saying not to date someone is not remotely close to the same thing as threatening to stalk and/or rape someone. Therefore, it is not actually a double standard.

  524. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm |

    Wait. But you’re still anonymous, right? So there is no difference between you and me.

    Almost, which is what makes your attempt to attack me for using a pseudonym so precious. But I use the same name everywhere. People can ban me if they like. They can send me an email (did you provide a real address?) and tell me to knock it off. I get a reputation, and people might start ignoring me.

    None of this has anything to do with what’s going on at this cesspool site.

  525. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 9, 2007 at 4:13 pm |

    I’d just like to point out that the extent of the “encouraging people to take surreptitious photos of them” was to state as a hypothetical that if photos were taken in a public place, the subjects may not have claim to the copyright.

    As for the poster who said he saw her at the gym: creepy? definitely. stalkish? debatable.

  526. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm | *

    I’d just like to point out that the extent of the “encouraging people to take surreptitious photos of them” was to state as a hypothetical that if photos were taken in a public place, the subjects may not have claim to the copyright.

    “Nice copyright you got there. Shame if something happened to it.”

    Thank you, Fat Tony.

  527. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 4:25 pm | *

    Nice strategy – when you clearly make a wrong comment, just claim the subject was irrelevant and move on. You will make a fine lawyer.

    I already do.

    And one reason is that I can see a bullshit false-equivalent distraction for what it is. DDHG was brought up for all of us to condemn lest we be seen as hypocrites for failing to condemn it. However, as I said, and as others have said, it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

  528. John Protevi
    John Protevi March 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm |

    Hector 542: sorry, but you need to review your Psych 101 notes, even though that was probably only 2 or 3 years ago for you. Hitting the other sites of Ciolli and Cohen would be punishing them for their bad behavior on Autoadmit. Presumably the punishment would stop when they started moderating fairly Autoadmit. Thus the punishment is directly focused on Autoadmit, though mediated by action on other sites. To use an analogy you might appreciate: when your mom grounds you for being a jerk at home, it’s no defense to say “I’m not a jerk when I’m not at home!” If going outside is a value to you, then you’ll reform your domestic behavior in order to get access to the outside. Similarly, if the revenue at the other sites is a value to Ciolli and Cohen, then they’ll reform Autoadmit to get access to that revenue. Is that simple enough for you?

  529. ~M~
    ~M~ March 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    I’m physically sickened by this. This whole situation. This whole post. Because… it means that when shit like this happens, unless you have hella time to sit down and write a long, thoughtful, well-researched essay in response, you might as well not bother.

    All I can do is be thankful that I am so unattractive by Law School Perv Standards [as well as unintelligent, uneducated, and with little or no "status" or "prestige"] that they do not even notice me. Not because I am afraid of them and their puerile stunts. But because if I had to spend my life living in a froth of rage I would probably have a heart attack at 40 and die.

  530. Hector B.
    Hector B. March 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm |

    Gotcha. Your understanding of human nature comes entirely from your undergraduate coursework.

  531. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager March 9, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    So let me see if I get this – if we post anonymously here, we are not allowed to complain about people who post anonymously elsewhere? WTF?

    Well, i don’t psot anonymously – heck, due to the uniqueness of my name, people can easily find out my exact address if they try (or they could get it by simply asking). So can I criticize them? Can Jill, who posts under her own name?

    When people post on the internet, they have to stand by their actions, no matter if they did it anonymously or not. Since it’s possible to track people on the internet, there can be legal repercussions of what they posted on the internet. If they don’t like it, well, they should not have posted anything that lead to such legal repercussions.

    Note: Regular commenters here are probably aware why I am fairly relaxed about my privacy – it should not be understod as a criticism of people who wants to stay anonymous, nor is it an attempt to make it sound like there is any validty to the idea that non-anonymous people are more entitled to criticize others.

  532. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm |

    Terrible. Absolutely terrible.

  533. John Protevi
    John Protevi March 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm |

    Jiminy Christmas, Hector, you are thick, aren’t you? I’m mocking your reliance on hackneyed Psych 101 cliches, which you parrot clumsily in 542.

  534. Hello
    Hello March 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm |

    Kristjan Wager Says:
    March 9th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
    So let me see if I get this – if we post anonymously here, we are not allowed to complain about people who post anonymously elsewhere? WTF?

    Well, i don’t psot anonymously – heck, due to the uniqueness of my name, people can easily find out my exact address if they try (or they could get it by simply asking). So can I criticize them? Can Jill, who posts under her own name?

    When people post on the internet, they have to stand by their actions, no matter if they did it anonymously or not. Since it’s possible to track people on the internet, there can be legal repercussions of what they posted on the internet. If they don’t like it, well, they should not have posted anything that lead to such legal repercussions.

    Note: Regular commenters here are probably aware why I am fairly relaxed about my privacy – it should not be understod as a criticism of people who wants to stay anonymous, nor is it an attempt to make it sound like there is any validty to the idea that non-anonymous people are more entitled to criticize others.

    My point was that complaining about buffoons making threats behind the anonymity of the Internet while making threats behind the anonymity of the Internet is hypocritical. Criticize them for all that they’ve done, but to call them cowards for posting anonymously while posting anonymously is contradictory.

    Your statement that there ought to be repercussions for anonymous Internet postings makes sense (or at least defensible) in this context. But there are journalists in China who have been arrested by the regime because the anonymity of the Internet had been pierced. And let’s not forget that most of the Founding Fathers of the United States authored most of their works under pseudonyms.

    In short, anonymity is crucial for the rare moments when important information has to be disclosed. (For example, XO was the first website to break the news of the Simpson Thatcher payraises — this wouldn’t have happened if posts were trackable.) The idiocy that surrounds anonymity is the price we pay for those rare moments.

  535. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm | *

    Criticize them for all that they’ve done, but to call them cowards for posting anonymously while posting anonymously is contradictory.

    What about for posting anonymously while making real threats against women using their real names?

    Because that’s the thing we have a problem with here. I don’t have any problem with pseudonymity for general internet purposes — in fact, I had a run-in not too long ago with someone who threatened to out me as part of her bugaboo about internet anonymity. And in fact, I use a pseudonym in large measure because I *don’t* want what’s happened to these women to happen to me — google searches turning up my name and rather than showing my work or my writings, showing vicious backbiting libel.

    But when someone uses the anonymity of a pseudonym to cause harm in meatspace, that person has forfeited any right to argue that anonymity is crucial.

    In short, anonymity is crucial for the rare moments when important information has to be disclosed. (For example, XO was the first website to break the news of the Simpson Thatcher payraises — this wouldn’t have happened if posts were trackable.) The idiocy that surrounds anonymity is the price we pay for those rare moments.

    You know, there’s a thing called “off the record” one can use while speaking to a reporter. You all keep bringing up this Simpson Thacher thing, as if it matters to what’s happening to Jill.

  536. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 5:57 pm | *

    Oh, incidentally — if Simpson Thacher really cared about finding out who leaked information about their raises, they could do it. All it takes is a couple of subpoenas. And it’s likely that their own IT department has a record of websites visited, if anyone was dumb enough to use the firm’s network to gossip about payraises to an outside site.

  537. Kristjan Wager
    Kristjan Wager March 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm |

    I have absolutely no clue what the Simpson Thatcher thing is about, but I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with breaking someone’s copyright, posting their contact information, making threatning and/or harmful comments.

    I am actually more liable for what I write about other people than most posters here, and yet it doesn’t keep me from participating in a number of debates on the internet. The same goes for those anonymous posters – they can participate in debates, but there are certain bounds that they have to keep within. When they step outside those bounds, there might be legal repercussions.

  538. Peter Stinson
    Peter Stinson March 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm |

    Wanting to join the fray, I’ve made a post on my blog.

  539. britgirlsf
    britgirlsf March 9, 2007 at 6:03 pm |

    Damn, Jill, I’m sorry that happened to you. Reason # 526 to think that most lawyers are sociopaths in training. I’ve always kind of wondered why the profession attracts so many people like that.
    I’m going to write something about this as long as you don’t mind. Unlike the asswipes on Autoadmit I will, of course, take it down if you have any objections.
    The idea about blocking your pics off behind a friends wall is a good one in a practical sense but the thing is you should’t have to. I’m wondering if there’s a way to figure out who the ones at your school are via their IP addresses and report them to the appropriate authorities, since what they’re doing IRL probably qualifies as stalking.

  540. britgirlsf
    britgirlsf March 9, 2007 at 6:48 pm |

    Eli…”I have found that simply by *not* being a complete jerk, most women are very nice to me. Even when I would get shot down (which was most of the time), it was done very politely.
    If you act like a jerk, you get *treated* like a jerk, and that’s nobody’s fault but yours. Alas, most jerks are completely oblivious to their own jerkitude, and believe themselves to be
    oppressed victims of a world that hates them for absolutely no reason at all. (Which is not to say that there aren’t a whole lot of jerks who think their jerkitude is their most awesome quality…) ”

    Funny how that works, isn’t it? I’m pretty nice to most of the guys I shoot down. The only times I’ve ever delivered a truly cold, evil, heartless putdown have indeed been when the guy in question was being a complete asshat. You reap what you sow.

  541. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) March 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm |

    To the imbecile “impersonating” me at #556: what’s your point? You can also lie about being someone who uses their real name on the internet? Of course, I’m sure I’m being too generous by thinking there’s any thought at all behind your action. You’re just too staggeringly stupid to say anything that doesn’t instantly humiliate you through it’s sheer idiocy, so you play these little tricks. Well done, halfwit. And I’m sure one of the site owners can confirm who you are.

    And “hello,” who sounds remarkably like the other idiot, who’s threatening anyone here, pseudonymously or otherwise? Then again, if you’re too stupid to understand that the point here isn’t anonymity, then there’s probably no point in asking. No one here is criticizing anyone for not disclosing their names, they’re criticizing them for harassing people while hiding behind anonymity. That’s the crucial part, cupcake.

    I’ve known a number of successful lawyers, and I’ve always been surprised at how extremely, and gleefully, derisive of three-fourths of their profession they are. Now I understand why. So thank you, dumb asses, for not hiding your light under a bushel, and not being content with simply being the laughing stock of your firm and your profession. You’re like a less talented William Hung, and for that, we thank you.

  542. ahunt
    ahunt March 9, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    Um…what continues to get my knickers in a twist is Autoadmitdiety’s blatant admission that this whole shitstorm is really about silencing the voices of women, about restricting our participation in the public arena.

    Jill asks if there is something else that can be done. Is there any way to take this to the student body of NYU, not necessarily online, but via FTF social networks? Word gets around, and if enough folks are made aware of the underlying purpose…to silence all women via online thuggery…perhaps a small leak ultimately will sink Lathorpe’s boat. I mean someone knows who this lout is, and just may want to see a bully laid low.

    Maybe?

  543. misguided janitor
    misguided janitor March 9, 2007 at 7:44 pm |

    You know, there’s a thing called “off the record” one can use while speaking to a reporter. You all keep bringing up this Simpson Thacher thing, as if it matters to what’s happening to Jill.

    I don’t think any news orgs covered STB going to 160, nor would many people be interested outside biglaw. Only two places really covered the recent salary hikes, XO and AboveTheLaw (which is also anonymous). This relates to Jill because things like salary reporting, OCI summaries, professor evaluations, and other law-related gossip and discussion are the primary concerns of XO. The same guarantee of anonymity that makes open and honest reporting of information and discussion possible can result in the current controversy when abused.

    IP tracking is usually disabled on XO, so I doubt you’ll have much luck finding the perpetrators, even if you were able to get the necessary subpoenas. This is the work of a small but dedicated minority of posters on XO, most of whom are not even law students. Lathorpe, for example, is not at NYU Law. I think the best move at this point would be to apply additional pressure to encourage the site admins to allow additional modding and to adopt a policy protecting private individuals.

  544. Kate AuH2O
    Kate AuH2O March 9, 2007 at 7:49 pm |

    wowwwwww. this is so upsetting. i see i didn’t get to this post until late, but i would like to defend myself and jill’s modeling pictures. jill does me a HUGE favor modeling in my shows. as she said, an abundance of my friends have stopped modeling due to feeling inferior to the “real” models. i also really appreciate that jill posts her auh2o fashion show pictures on flickr as i have SO many people come into my store that say: “i read about your store on feministe!” or “i saw pictures of your designs on flickr.” jill is such a great help and friend to me, i can’t believe people could see it any other way.

  545. Ismone
    Ismone March 9, 2007 at 7:51 pm |

    Anonymity is fine and dandy. Defamatory or infringing posts should be deleted or the sites should be shut down, under the terms of the service providers. Period.

  546. John Protevi
    John Protevi March 9, 2007 at 8:05 pm |

    misguided janitor in 566, your damage control might work, but I think your anxiety is showing. It’s just simply not your call what Jill et al. are going to do. I’m sorry if that makes you nervous, but you’re going to just have to deal with it. Autoadmit has gotten a lot of smart and hardworking people mad at it and they’re going to have to pay the consequences of that. Maybe if you had been proactive you could have advised them earlier, before the shit hit the WaPo fan.

  547. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science March 9, 2007 at 8:22 pm |

    The idiocy that surrounds anonymity is the price we pay for those rare moments.

    No, it’s not.

    There are thousands (millions?) of online sites where people post anonymously & pseudonymously that aren’t sleezepits. The difference is culture: the willingness of the site participants to call each other on their behavior.

    britgirlsf wrote:

    most lawyers are sociopaths in training. I’ve always kind of wondered why the profession attracts so many people like that.

    What it looks like to me is that Law attracts a fair number of people who love playing with the rules for human interaction, but have no inner, self-powered sense of what those rules are.

    Some of these people are definitely sociopaths. Some, I suspect, are authoritarians: rules come from outside and are obeyed due to fear of punishment.

    I’ve seen a *lot* of instances over the years where someone posted someone else’s personal info online as a form of harrassment. What I’ve never seen before is such a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the perps & their supporters — they do not seem to see what is so clear to a fifth-grader (see #402).

  548. Robert O'Brien
    Robert O'Brien March 9, 2007 at 8:38 pm |

    How’s Salt Lake City treating you? BYU, I presume?

    BYU is in Provo, not Salt Lake City; the University of Utah would be a better guess.

  549. K
    K March 9, 2007 at 10:19 pm |

    There’s been a lot of discussion about whether the defamation is actionable, but the fact is, stalking is actionable too. It seems to me that a strong case could be made for a subpeona of certain individuals’ IP details in order to take out restraining orders against them… Yes, I know restraining orders are poorly enforced documents that don’t protect you, but they are useful if you’re trying to prove someone’s conduct unworthy of the bar.

    On another issue, I spent some time investigating the attempt to out Paulie.walnutsack and I don’t believe the current approach will work. I’m in one of his claimed alumni networks and the information doesn’t add up. Besides which, didn’t the “Now I’m going to get a PhD in microbiology” bother anyone else?

  550. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 10:32 pm | *

    The person who impersonated Heraclitus at #556, who also posted at #558 as “Hello,” is banned for impersonating another poster.

  551. zuzu
    zuzu March 9, 2007 at 10:41 pm | *

    I don’t think any news orgs covered STB going to 160, nor would many people be interested outside biglaw.

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Have you not heard of AmLaw? NYLJ? National Law Journal?

    Salaries are BIG news in the legal community. And they’re big news in the business community, since businesses hire big law firms, and once the first-year salaries go up at one firm, the first-year salaries go up at competing firms, and the salaries for all the other years go up as well. And if salaries go up, hourly rates go up.

    You all really need to get up and leave the circle jerk sometimes. First-year salaries are not the concern only of law students.

  552. Nobody
    Nobody March 9, 2007 at 11:44 pm |

    Crappy thing to have to go through. Marginally more crappy than having goofy light sabre wedding pictures posted. It’s too bad people can’t help being jerks.

  553. britgirlsf
    britgirlsf March 10, 2007 at 1:02 am |

    “What it looks like to me is that Law attracts a fair number of people who love playing with the rules for human interaction, but have no inner, self-powered sense of what those rules are.

    Some of these people are definitely sociopaths. Some, I suspect, are authoritarians: rules come from outside and are obeyed due to fear of punishment.

    I’ve seen a *lot* of instances over the years where someone posted someone else’s personal info online as a form of harrassment. What I’ve never seen before is such a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the perps & their supporters — they do not seem to see what is so clear to a fifth-grader (see #402). ”
    Are you familiar with Piaget’s theory of moral development in children? The moral framework these people are displaying is actually at a level far, far below that of most 10 year olds.

  554. Joe
    Joe March 10, 2007 at 1:12 am |

    Even Jack Balkin is weighing in? Crazy! And to think, all of this because Anthony Ciolli is a douchebag!

    Y’know, that phrase has a ring to it; it just sounds right: “Anthony Ciolli is a douchebag!”

    I don’t think any news orgs covered STB going to 160, nor would many people be interested outside biglaw. Only two places really covered the recent salary hikes, XO and AboveTheLaw (which is also anonymous). This relates to Jill because things like salary reporting, OCI summaries, professor evaluations, and other law-related gossip and discussion are the primary concerns of XO. The same guarantee of anonymity that makes open and honest reporting of information and discussion possible can result in the current controversy when abused. [misguided janitor at 567.]

    Wow.

    Things that are demonstrably true: (1) these things are not the primary concern of XO, at least insofar as by “concern” we mean something approximating “raison d’être“; (2) salary is a big deal everywhere and is not at all the sort of privileged information which a forum such as XO can provide to fill a knowledge gap; (3) moderation of hateful speech acts would hardly necessarily entail a lack of supposed anonymity which might permit posters to post legitimate and useful information which they would prefer not to post non-anonymously, such as gossip about their firms; and (4) Anthony Ciolli is a douchebag.

    I feel sorry for people such as Jill and myself who go to school with, and may someday work with, XOers (and similar “persons” (to the extent that that is an accurate signifier) who have no redeeming qualities in life whatsoever).

  555. Span
    Span March 10, 2007 at 1:14 am |

    Marginally more crappy? MARGINALLY? Nobody, there is something wrong with you if you cannot see how much worse this is than having embarassing wedding pictures of yourself online.

    Embarassing wedding pictures do not encourage other people to photograph you without your consent, they do not encourage possible attacks, they do not encourage massive invasions of your privacy, and they do not generally encourage people of supposedly sound mind to speculate in public forums about what it would be like to have sex with you.

  556. Nobody
    Nobody March 10, 2007 at