AutoAdmit Update

Looks like one of AutoAdmit’s heads, Anthony Ciolli, has stepped down from his position as Chief Education Director of the site (yeah, I laughed at that title too). He’s still affiliated with AutoAdmit and will continue to manage the other sites that he co-owns with Jarret Cohen — the other AutoAdmit head, who has not stepped down. Ciolli says he’s dropping the message board because of an incident of cyber-harassment, but it’s probably not too much of a stretch to speculate that this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back after the WaPo article and several reported meetings with his law school deans.

As much as I can’t stand the pit that AutoAdmit is, I’m not looking to shut down the site or get its creators pushed out. I just think that they need to be more responsible and more consistent — if you have an anti-outing policy, then that should apply to posters and to completely unrelated female law school students who did nothing more than go to school with a handful of pathetic one-handed keyboardists. While Ciolli is definitely smart to resign and to save his own skin, I wish that he and Cohen would have instituted a more proactive solution. Because that board is ugly, and it keeps getting uglier.

Case in point: The incident which pushed Ciolli to step down. One AutoAdmit poster sent the following email to the entire faculty of a top-five law school, about one of the female students who spoke out about being entered in the Top 14 beauty contest (names and identifying information have been redacted):

Dear [redacted] faculty,

I write to you now about a very important issue that affects a non-trivial number of you. Although you undoubtedly deal with self-entitled, spoiled students on a regular basis, there’s one person in particular whose history I feel you must be made aware of before problems arise. [Redacted], a student in your [redacted] class, has a felon as a father who stole money from [redacted — his place of work] to buy her horses. I kid you not, she asked her father for horses so he took money from an organization aimed at helping the poor. Just imagine how hard she must have begged him in order to commit such an odious crime. One could make the argument that her character at ten is not representative of her values as an adult, if it wasn’t for the recent evidence to the contrary. She spent in excess of $150 to remove material that was in the public domain, simply because she found it offensive that it emphasized her good looks. If such reckless use of money in the name of free speech suppression is not indicative of a damaged character, I don’t know what it is. Best of luck to you in managing this liability, it is regretful that the admissions process can’t encapsulate the entire person.

XOXO

HTH

Patrick Bateman (Harvard Law School 08)

In his post on AutoAdmit, the author of this lovely email (who appropriately calls himself lonelyvirgin) writes, “I post this here as a warning to all those who would try to regulate the more antisocial posters- we have the power now.”

Yes, I’m sure the faculty of that fine institution are up in arms about a crime that a woman’s father committed when she was a child. I’m sure she’s been expelled.

I cannot emphasize enough what bottom-feeders some of the posters on that board are. I’m sure there are dozens of decent people who read AutoAdmit for advice about law school, but they’re tremendously over-shadowed by these fuckwits. And while responsibility does fall primarily on the individuals who are posting these things, the owners of the board are responsible for not moderating it properly, and for allowing it to turn into a complete cesspool. Jarret Cohen continues to shirk that responsibility by appealing to ideals of “free speech” — making it clear that he is not in fact a lawyer (nor even a layperson familiar with with constitutional law). First-year Con Law (or even 8th grade civics class) should make it clear enough that the right to free speech means the right to expression without governmental interference, not the right to express yourself however you want wherever you want. I have the right to publish this post on my own blog, in my own corner of the internet, without the Bush administration shutting me down. I do not have the right to write whatever I want on Pandagon or the National Review or the New York Times. The right to free speech does not mean an unrestrained platform on which to speak. If Jarret Cohen wishes to offer bigots, racists, anti-Semites and misogynists such an unrestrained platform, then that’s his decision, but he needs to own it and not offer up pat justifications for behavior which has caused substantial harm to many other people.

The latest bout of cyber-harassment isn’t out of the ordinary for AutoAdmit, even if it is outrageous. Ciolli is smart to distance himself from that toilet. Now if only Cohen had the balls to actually regulate it.

*Also, thanks for all the kind and supportive emails in response to my previous AutoAdmit post. I’m sorry I haven’t emailed you all back yet, but today is the first day I’ve been well enough to spend more than 5 minutes sitting upright at my computer. You will be hearing from me within the next few days.

126 comments for “AutoAdmit Update

  1. March 13, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    I saw that post and the thread it spawned, but never dreamed the guy would be fool enough to actually do it.

    After all this time the thing that continues to boggle my mind is that these guys got accepted to law school in the first place.

  2. March 13, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    I have a strong suspicion — based primarily on the emailer’s writing skills — that he was not, actually, accepted to law school in the first place. But who knows.

  3. March 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Yes, I noticed even the other AutoAdmit clowns trashed him on the crappy writing. Pretty sad.

    Hey, but how nice that he identifies with Patrick Bateman, huh? Now there was a guy who just loved women!

  4. March 13, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    So it was supposed to be her fault that her dad was a fraud?

    He definitely wasn’t a law student.

  5. March 13, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    I dated a guy who loved American Psycho and idolized Patrick Bateman. As soon as he told me that, I should have run the other way. Needless the say, the relationship was a disaster, and the guy continues to have serious issues.

    But the Bateman-idolizing seems to be pretty popular among younger, upper-middle-class white dudes, huh? My little friend, this AutoAdmit guy, the Duke lacrosse e-mailer… there are dozens of Facebook groups with names like “Patrick Bateman is my idol” and “I have to return some videotapes.” Ugh.

  6. March 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Time for Huey Lewis and the News to stage that comeback!

  7. March 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    He’s got his illogic down pat.

    Men who embezzle aren’t to blame. Men who sexually harass aren’t to blame. It’s them girls and women who are to blame for every bad thing men have ever done or will ever do.

    Yeah, that’s his victimology and he’s sticking to it.

  8. March 13, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Ditto abyss2hope — amazing how people who equate feminism with playing the victim seem to pin everything wrong in their lives and the lives of other men on women. Grow up, guys.

  9. March 13, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    I wouldn’t say it was impossible he got admitted to law school–I know some lawyers who are dumb as a box of hammers. But I doubt sincerely that he’s a 2L at Harvard.

    I, of course, am shocked–shocked!–that the events on AutoAdmit escalated to real-world stalking and harassment. I mean, who could have seen that coming? Isn’t it just all about being offensive on the boards? [/snark]

  10. Random Observer 3
    March 13, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    “I post this here as a warning to all those who would try to regulate the more antisocial posters- we have the power now.”

    They have the power to…make idiots out of themselves? It is truly *amazing* that all these lawyers and lawyer wannabes don’t seem to know anything about basic logic and common sense, let alone the law.

    “Oh noes her dad stole some ponies!” Lol…seriously is that a joke? This guy *really* sent that? If I were a law prof the only thing I would do in response to this email is send a letter to my friends at Harvard calling them a safety school and mocking their admissions process.

    In the previous thread you had non-lawyers quoting copyright and harrassment law while these jokers looked on clueless.

    I liked American Psycho but do people not realize the whole point was that Patrick Bateman was a delusional, powerless loser surrounded a bunch of hollow shells? These guys aspire to be people who one-up each other based on how fancy their business card holders are?

  11. Random Observer 3
    March 13, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Note: Yes, I’m going to keep trying! I am nothing if not persistent.

  12. March 13, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    I dated a guy who loved American Psycho and idolized Patrick Bateman. As soon as he told me that, I should have run the other way. Needless the say, the relationship was a disaster, and the guy continues to have serious issues.

    Oh thank the shiny spots of the disco ball I’m not the only one.

    At least he told me that while lending me the book, so I proceeded to read [most of] it and dump him.

  13. ahunt
    March 13, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    I’d like to note that this flap has raised another red flag: where parents will send their daughters to school.

    Go figure: as much as I tried to point out that this crap would happen anywhere, the immediate response of my mid middle-aged peers was a knee-jerk response to keep “our” daughters closer to home. Not that this is rational…

    We are not so old that younger parents could not have the same knee-jerk reaction.

  14. March 13, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Oh thank the shiny spots of the disco ball I’m not the only one.

    At least he told me that while lending me the book, so I proceeded to read [most of] it and dump him.

    At least yours read the book. I’m pretty sure mine only saw the movie a dozen times.

  15. March 13, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    But, semi-interesting American Psycho/feminist factoid: Gloria Steinem married Christian Bale’s father.

  16. March 13, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    The level of cruelty and petty, simple-minded viciousness by these guys is so beyond the pale, I don’t know what to say, except to say I’m sorry to Jill and all the women who got dragged into it.

  17. Betsy
    March 13, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    Oy vey. It kind of amuses me to imagine the head-scratching and brow-furrowing that one would have glimpsed observing the professors read such a batshit crazy email. If I ever got an email like that about one of my students, I would just be confused about why someone thought I would give 2 seconds consideration to anyone who was obviously trying to tar one of my students. I’m quite capable of assessing my students on the basis of their work and contribution to class discussion, thankyouverymuch.

  18. Rockit
    March 13, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    Wow, I scanned the other posts on the topic with a sense of disdain for these guys but this is just something else. What kind of maladjusted person does something like this, and for such a small reason?

    As for the Bateman thing, guys like this possibly latch on to him as a role model because he managed to get away with his crimes because he was rich, successful and attractive. Ignoring the fact that the book was an indictment of that culture of privileged entitlement. At least that was what I took from it, I didn’t really buy into the ‘woo-ooo…it was all in his mind’ cop-out ending the film seemed to suggest.

  19. March 13, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    It would be nice to cheer, but Jill’s right, this does nothing to change the actual culture of the board.
    The thing about the student’s Dad stealing ponies though…I THINK that was intended as satirical. Note the “intended”. There should be a rule that stupid people not attempt satire, they’re only going to hurt themselves.
    I’d love to have seen the WTF looks on the faces of whichever faculty members opened that letter.
    “So one of our students asked her Dad for a pony when she was 10…and? Oh dear I think this person was trying to be funny. This is from one of our students? Oh dear, better slow down on those legacy admissions”.

  20. Jen
    March 13, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    I think the Patrick Bateman idolizing is really weird, too. I’m an undergrad and noticed the Facebook groups last year right around the time that the Duke lacrosse email was made public and have been squicked out ever since by the movie’s cult status among some guys my age.

    I’ve had a lame fascination with Christian Bale since watching Newsies as a kid, and, though I still haven’t quite decided if AP is on my good or bad list (the film; haven’t/don’t really care to read the book), it creeps me out that some guys seem to have this weird, misconstrued appreciation for it. This is the first time I’ve come across a discussion of it, so it’s reassuring to know that other people have noticed it.

    And to add to Jill’s factoid: Steinem and Bale the elder met at an abortion-rights benefit (or, so says the Christian Bale interview in this month’s GQ (again, lame fascination)). From what I know, Christian Bale’s dad was quite the cool guy, in terms of his activism for women’s rights, animal rights, etc.

  21. March 13, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    This is beyond being an imbecile. Seriously, Harvard law grads should find out who he is and sue. I actually thought he was a Harvard Law student before reading the comments here, and my thought was, “Wow, Harvard Law is now officially a laughing stock.” Some Harvard Law students/recent grads should find him and sue him for hurting their financial prospects by misrepresenting himself. Or at least make some noise about it, to make this little worm sweat.

    By the way, I’m visiting my family this week and posting from a different computer than normally. Since someone tried to impersonate me on the other thread, I thought I would mention it.

  22. March 14, 2007 at 12:19 am

    8th grade civics class was so long ago. Surely I can’t be expected to remember silly things like what my rights are, or aren’t.

    Jill, the community on my website was always very much like the way it is now, even in the days when it existed on the Princeton Review message board. I didn’t create it. It’s something greater than me.

    I think people find it so shocking and controversial because you can hardly find anything else quite like it on the net. No, I don’t agree with many of the things on the site, but if you were to walk into a comedy club, would you laugh at any of the vile humor even if you didn’t necessarily agree with it? Well, maybe you wouldn’t, but certainly many other people who do have a sense of humor (and maybe a little bit of alcohol to cool their nerves) would. I think you can create a vehicle for other people to communicate and express themselves without necessarily endorsing their words. This isn’t to say I think character assassination belongs on the site at all, but the magnitude of the problem is being exaggerated by the media spotlight.

    I’d be happy to talk to you in more depth. You may be surprised by some of the things you’ll find out by attempting to do a little bit of investigation beyond a WaPo article and some threads on the board.

  23. March 14, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Oh, that’s funny–posts don’t show up here unless you approve them.

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

  24. March 14, 2007 at 12:43 am

    At least yours read the book. I’m pretty sure mine only saw the movie a dozen times.

    Do I even need to say that, given the career of writer/director Mary Harron, your ex was seriously missing the point of that movie?

    It’s like the guy who watches Casino and thinks, “Gosh, I want to be just like Nicky Santoro!”

  25. March 14, 2007 at 1:32 am

    I’ve been following this story for awhile. I actually asked a couple of college undergrad women if they had heard about this. We got to talking about blogs and Facebook. She commented that she liked Facebook when it was a closed group that only other students could comment. But when I read about what other law students are capable of it really saddens me.

    I expect this kind of talk from slack jawed yokels, but maybe THEY are the ones with the manners!
    Also I don’t want to get all political and religious but it would be interesting to know if they consider themselves Christians and if they are Republican’s or Democrats.

    LLAP,
    Spocko

  26. March 14, 2007 at 1:42 am

    Rockit – I think it’s the “it’s all in his head” part they relate to the most. All the way through the book, they’re like, ‘I wish I could be this guy,’ then at the last bit they go ‘Oh hey! I am this guy!’ And then they get to hold onto all the rich, powerful, attractive parts, because they share the fantasy with Christian Bale.

    I admit, I didn’t finish the book. I had the ill fortune to get to the rat-tube part while eating, and could never stand to even open it again.

    btw, tomorrow I’m picking up a box of free junk from somebody who’s moving and has no room for it, and not ten minutes after I typed “the shiny spots of the disco ball,” I got an email from her that said there will be a disco ball and motor in the box – how cool?

  27. March 14, 2007 at 2:11 am

    OMG. I thought students of the law were supposed to be uber-busy studying.

  28. Scarlet
    March 14, 2007 at 4:02 am

    At least that was what I took from it, I didn’t really buy into the ‘woo-ooo…it was all in his mind’ cop-out ending the film seemed to suggest.

    Well, as far as I remember (granted, I read the book a loooong time ago), it was also the ending of the book.

  29. BlackBloc
    March 14, 2007 at 7:03 am

    Spoiled rich brats that liked American Psycho? I’ll put them in the same mental category as the neo-nazi skinheads that love American History X.

  30. micheyd
    March 14, 2007 at 7:25 am

    Well, I think it’s ambiguous whether or not it was all in his mind, but it works either way, in my opinion – either he’s just teflon-privileged and no one cares, or it’s a commentary on how we like to think our culture “civilizes”, but it can merely shove a psychopath under the rug and pretend he doesn’t exist.

    In any case, if you identify with Bateman’s character, that’s all kinds of fucked up.

    /derail

  31. March 14, 2007 at 7:28 am

    The movie and the book were always completely vague on the point of whether it was all in his head or not. Remember that all the guys were supposed to be interchangeable. So the fact that someone says they saw Paul Allen doesn’t mean much in the context that another one of the guys had been mistakenly identified as Paul Allen earlier in the film. You can’t really be sure if Paul Allen is alive or not, so you can’t really be sure if Bateman committed the crimes or not.

    “American Psycho” was an indictment of mass consumerism and obsession with wealth and power, IMO. The idea that anyone would actually idolize Patrick Bateman is frightening. He was never intended as a sympathetic character. You were supposed to see him as the soulless psycho he was. You were supposed to see all the guys as soulless interchangeable non-individuals. I think it works on the level it was intended to, but then again, I’ve never met anyone who worshipped Bateman and missed the point so completely.

  32. Lya Kahlo
    March 14, 2007 at 7:30 am

    “I liked American Psycho but do people not realize the whole point was that Patrick Bateman was a delusional, powerless loser surrounded a bunch of hollow shells? These guys aspire to be people who one-up each other based on how fancy their business card holders are.”

    I have a strong feeling that those who do “like” Patrick Bateman are also delusional, powerless losers and hollow shells. I suggest that their deep need to shame, degrade and endanger women they don’t know is their striving to be just like him.

  33. March 14, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Go figure: as much as I tried to point out that this crap would happen anywhere, the immediate response of my mid middle-aged peers was a knee-jerk response to keep “our” daughters closer to home. Not that this is rational…

    We are not so old that younger parents could not have the same knee-jerk reaction.

    Well, this younger parent won’t. Frankly, my daughter’s not going to be any more or less safe if she goes to school at the University of Minnesota or the University of Maine. And I’m not going to be there holding her hand either way–all I can do is teach her how to deal with the morons.

  34. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 8:53 am

    Oh, that’s funny–posts don’t show up here unless you approve them.

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

    Your lack of a legal education is showing, Jarret.

  35. micheyd
    March 14, 2007 at 8:55 am

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

    Ha, sometimes these guys just parody themselves…

  36. RKMK
    March 14, 2007 at 9:05 am

    Oh, that’s funny–posts don’t show up here unless you approve them.

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

    *gigglesnort*

    You don’t even need to come up with mockery. They just speak for themselves.

  37. March 14, 2007 at 9:18 am

    And UPenn just went down a few more spots in the rankings.

  38. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 9:21 am

    Oh, this one’s not the one from UPenn, norbiz. This is the college dropout insurance agent tagging along on the law board.

  39. Lorelei
    March 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Jill, the community on my website was always very much like the way it is now, even in the days when it existed on the Princeton Review message board. I didn’t create it. It’s something greater than me.

    Unfortunately, this still means that you’re an asshole. Why? Because there’s absolutely no need to take part in it, but you did.

  40. Roy
    March 14, 2007 at 10:19 am

    I have absolutely no desire to reread AP, but the ending didn’t really seem all that ambigious to me. It seemed pretty obvious that it was all in his mind- that sort of seemed like part of The Point (if it has to have one).

    I know people who like the book a lot, but I’ve never met someone who identified with or idolized Bateman.

    Ugh.

    Cohen: That’s a total cop-out.
    Let’s start with the obvious: Having the right to do something doesn’t make it right to do it. I have the right to post all kinds of information about people I know. Things that they may find hurtful and that may embarass them. The fact that I have the right to do so does not mean that it would be right of me to do so.

    Second, as Jill pointed out in the original post, the First Amendment protection of free speech is, in case you’ve forgotten, in regards to government interference with free expression, not with private interference. As the admin of a website, you have every right to control the content. Moderating comments and controlling content on a website you control is most certainly within your rights. That you choose not to is your right, but saying that you’re protecting free speech is not a reason, it is an excuse- a cop-out.

    Your analogy doesn’t work, either, by the way. If I walked into a comedy club, and the guy started making threats towards me, and started giving out my personal information, you can be damn sure that I would not be laughing, and that I would expect the owner of the club to take some action to stop it.

    I think you can create a vehicle for other people to communicate and express themselves without necessarily endorsing their words. This isn’t to say I think character assassination belongs on the site at all, but the magnitude of the problem is being exaggerated by the media spotlight.

    I think that you can create a vehicle for other people to communicate and express themselves without necessarily endorsing their words and also foster an environment that expects people to act with at least a bare minimal level of human decency.

    When you allow people to post personal information about women and when you tolerate users making threats, you send a very powerful message.

    Words have power, and the way you allow your users to wield them says a lot. You may not endorse what they say, but you’ve shown, at the very least, tolerance for it, at the expense of the women being targeted.

    That speaks volumes.

  41. March 14, 2007 at 10:38 am

    Translation to Jarret’s whine: ZOMG! You are all oppressing me by moderating comments and it’s JUST LIKE STALINIST RUSSIA!!!

  42. Allison
    March 14, 2007 at 11:10 am

    In Soviet Russia, comments moderate you.

  43. Lya Kahlo
    March 14, 2007 at 11:15 am

    “Translation to Jarret’s whine: ZOMG! You are all oppressing me by moderating comments and it’s JUST LIKE STALINIST RUSSIA!!! ”

    Careful – or he’ll get his crazed mysogynistic online buddies to find out who you are, post all your personal info and tell people when and how to attack you.

    You know – it’s his free speech right and all.

  44. Bitter Scribe
    March 14, 2007 at 11:31 am

    I admire Christian Bale, but only to the extent that he delivered a great performance in an extraordinarily difficult role. I found the book unreadable, as is all of Bret Easton Ellis’s oeuvre.

    As for the purported Harvard Law student, all I can say is I hope to God he’s a fraud. If he really does graduate from Harvard Law, he’ll be in a unique position to impose his neuroses on innocent people.

  45. Blitzgal
    March 14, 2007 at 11:32 am

    Oh, that’s funny–posts don’t show up here unless you approve them.

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

    It’s called a spam filter, doofus.

    Otherwise, I’ve noticed that American Psycho and Fight Club are two films that seem to attract quite a disparate group of fans–the self-involved and shallow fratboy type that doesn’t actually understand the underlying philosophy in either piece is just one subset. They’re the ones who simply love it for the violence and think it’s totally! awesome! when Brad Pitt bashes that pretty boy’s face in.

    Both films (and yes, I’ve read American Psycho) have interesting things going on underneath but are overall the sort of tedious chest-pounding, “No one understands what it’s like to be a MAN” whining that we hear in the “Masculinist” movement. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t dismiss men’s issues out of hand, but if the answer to a lack of true masculine role models is the nihilistic urge to beat the shit out of something, then you kind of open yourself up to a little bit of derision.

  46. evil fizz
    March 14, 2007 at 11:35 am

    and think it’s totally! awesome! when Brad Pitt bashes that pretty boy’s face in.

    Wait, isn’t Brad Pitt also a pretty boy?

  47. tara
    March 14, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Jill, what you wrote about free speech in the third para from the bottom– especially how it has been misconstrued, often for obviously political reasons — is very spot-on. Because many people accept (uncritically, to me) the notion that ‘being free means anyone should be able to say anything,’ they bypass any sort of criticism (or, just making people accountable) of speech. I think this notion ‘free speech’ actually works to suppress (1) some people’s rights to speech and (2) the type of dissent envisioned by those who wrote this into the Constitution.

  48. March 14, 2007 at 11:37 am

    While Ciolli is definitely smart to resign and to save his own skin

    Remember all that talk about how things last forever on the Internet and employers can Google all kinds of embarassing facts about you? It’s a bit late for him to be thinking about skin-saving.

    Jarrett appears to be one of those morons who thinks ‘free speech’ means ‘I get to say anything I want whenever wherever, and NO TAGBACKS.’

  49. Blitzgal
    March 14, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Wait, isn’t Brad Pitt also a pretty boy?

    Well, yeah…but he wasn’t supposed to be in that movie. In that one he’s supposed to be the supreme specimen of glorious anti-hero rugged masculinity, who thumbs his nose at authority and totally rocks! Or something.

  50. tara
    March 14, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Second, as Jill pointed out in the original post, the First Amendment protection of free speech is, in case you’ve forgotten, in regards to government interference with free expression, not with private interference. As the admin of a website, you have every right to control the content. Moderating comments and controlling content on a website you control is most certainly within your rights. That you choose not to is your right, but saying that you’re protecting free speech is not a reason, it is an excuse- a cop-out.

    To add to your helpful comment: I see the same reasoning given by newspaper editors all the time to justify what they’ve published. C’mon: [newspaper editors,] you make all sorts of decisions, all the time, about what goes in the paper and how it is featured, based on your conceptions of newsworthiness. Yours isn’t a free forum; and, if it were, would it be helpful and informative, or even coherent? Oftentimes, newspeople use the rhetoric of free speech because they think it gives them camouflage. To me, this is irresponsible journalistic practice.

  51. Chet
    March 14, 2007 at 11:52 am

    I think people find it so shocking and controversial because you can hardly find anything else quite like it on the net.

    Funny, a quick Google search found a website almost exactly like yours:

    http://www.mrpoop.com/

    Shocking? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. Worth anybody’s time? Just like AutoAdmit, no, not really.

  52. Mnemosyne
    March 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Well, yeah…but he wasn’t supposed to be in that movie. In that one he’s supposed to be the supreme specimen of glorious anti-hero rugged masculinity, who thumbs his nose at authority and totally rocks! Or something.

    I thought that was Legends of the Fall.

    It’s so easy to get your Brad-Pitt-as-untamed-masculinity-symbol movies mixed up; they all blend together so fast.

  53. Josh
    March 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    it’s totally! awesome! when Brad Pitt bashes that pretty boy’s face in

    I believe it was actually Edward Norton who did the face-bashing.

  54. piny
    March 14, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    I’ve had a lame fascination with Christian Bale since watching Newsies as a kid, and, though I still haven’t quite decided if AP is on my good or bad list (the film; haven’t/don’t really care to read the book), it creeps me out that some guys seem to have this weird, misconstrued appreciation for it. This is the first time I’ve come across a discussion of it, so it’s reassuring to know that other people have noticed it.

    It’s like Lolita, except with serial sexualized murder instead of incest.

  55. Blitzgal
    March 14, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    I believe it was actually Edward Norton who did the face-bashing.

    You’re right. But they’re both the same person. Gasp! Spoiler alert!

  56. March 14, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    defenestrated – the rat-tube was the point at which I almost gave up on American Psycho too. I forced myself to finish reading it, but I’ve never been so glad to be able to put down a book in my life. And this is from someone who reads 5-6 books a week – it’s the first time I’ve ever contemplated not finishing a book because it disgusted me. (On the rare other occasions I don’t finish a book, it’s because they’ve bored me.)

  57. Betsy
    March 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    In case anyone’s interested, there was an article in the Harvard Crimson today about AutoAdmit:
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517679

    I think it’s courageous of this one student ot speak out against it, but I don’t blame the other two who don’t, especially when, as we’ve seen, there’s a very real chance they’d be harassed, slandered, and stalked if they did. Bah. The people who do this are human filth.

  58. March 14, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    I thought American Psycho was a fascinating book and I also enjoyed the movie adaptation of it because Christian Bale’s performance was so spot-on bone-chilling. But it seems these “Patrick Bateman idolizers” never caught on to the fact that Ellis never intended him to be held up as a hero. He was a satire, a caricature of the materialism, narcissism and misogyny of Regan-era American upper class society taken to the extreme. The author of the book had nothing but contempt for the character he created. The character was deliberately made completely unempathetic and unidentifiable on any kind of real, human level to fully illustrate the absurdity of the things he values and the violence he “commits”. Bateman himself states that though he looks like a human being, he is not one (I’m paraphrasing). The world he lives in is so completely devoid of anything resembling true humanity that the only way he can feel alive is by taking the lives of others. In Bateman’s world, human life is just another form of currency and taking that of others makes him powerful.

    Bateman never “got away” with his crimes. The way I interpreted the story, Bateman never actually killed anybody. He merely fantasized about doing so in graphic detail, and became so entranced by his own delusions that he began to believe that he really DID commit the crimes he fantasized about committing. Which, like another poster remarked, made the reality of him a pathetic delusional loser, not a sociopathic mastermind. I don’t think this interpretation is a “cop out” in the least. It was quite deliberate, in that Patrick’s crimes and response to the shallow facade of a culture he inhabited were just as artificial as the values which inspired him. There was NOTHING real in the story aside perhaps from the only sympathetic character in the book: Patrick’s secretary, Jean. This, I believe, is why Patrick was unable to murder her the way he had all the others.

    I don’t believe Ellis himself had anything but contempt for the character he created, nor do I believe Ellis intended the audience to feel anything but sheer contempt for Bateman — not horror, because horror would require the reader to view Bateman as a realistic, three dimensional character rather than the one dimensional caricature he was intended to be. Bateman was a metaphor for 80s materialism, not to be taken literally as either a portrait of a human being or as a fictional figure of admiration/worship.

    Anyone who takes the character of Bateman as anything more than that, and expresses admiration and hero worship for him, probably does have issues. But as a work of fiction, I don’t think “American Psycho” should be dismissed out of hand as a vehicle for misogynist hate-speech. What it really is, is a dark comedy, wickedly dark, disturbingly dark, revoltingly dark, but Bateman should not be taken seriously. Anyone who does take the character seriously has seriously missed the point!

  59. Karla
    March 14, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    The Chronicle of Higher Ed has an article on this whole mess:

    http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/03/2007031401n.htm

    I don’t know if non-subscribers can access it, but basically there are a bunch of ethics, law, etc. professors criticizing the AutoAdmit administrators and Ciolli and Cohen whining. Some excerpts:

    “Mr. Ciolli, who resigned from his position as chief education director for the Web site and then appeared to reinstate himself (he later said that was done by an imposter using a similar screen name) in a series of emotional, middle-of-the-night postings early Tuesday on AutoAdmit, did not reply to e-mail messages. Mr. Cohen said in an interview that one of the women who had been asking for two years that posts be removed had threatened to sue him. “I don’t respond to people like that,” he said. Mr. Cohen added that he could not selectively remove messages on a site with eight million posts without being accused of applying inconsistent standards.”

    “Mr. Cohen, the site’s co-founder, blamed Mr. Fertik [whose group ReputationDefender is representing four of the women harassed and threatened on AutoAdmit] for capitalizing on the furor. “ReputationDefender is trying to use this as a steppingstone to promote themselves, and they’re using these women as sacrificial lambs,” he said. “Instead of just coming to me and talking to me, they’ve whipped up this public frenzy that’s just causing a lot more anger and resentment.””

    “Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the nation’s leading legal-ethics experts, said the Web site and the controversy it has created could come back to haunt Mr. Cohen’s partner, Mr. Ciolli, when he looks for a job.
    “He has the power to remove those offensive postings, and he is a fool not to.” ”

    I can’t believe (well, yes I can) Cohen tried to claim that the women standing up to this crap makes them “sacrificial lambs”.

  60. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    I found the first-person, present-tense narration pretty annoying the first time I read it, which was shortly after it came out. I’m wondering if I should do a re-read.

  61. March 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Your lack of a legal education is showing, Jarret.

    zuzu, it wasn’t a serious legalistic comment. It was more or less a tease. You need to avoid taking comment threads so darn seriously. I don’t go around using the term “free speech”–it’s a term that a lot of people discussing this have been using.

    Let me clarify something: The WaPo article created a false impression of my policies and my philosophy on the message board. Some of the quotes were even taken from a two-year-old article on the net that was written at a time when there was a controversy over the topics being discussed on the website. I was defending the people’s right to talk about anything they wanted, to be idiots, if you will, and to use foul language if desired, but never was an endorsement of using the site for character assassination. That article did not relate to character assassination at all, which I condemn.

    In fact, I have helped many of the relatively few people out in the past who have written to me and asked for help in getting embarrassing threads removed about them.

    Oh, this one’s not the one from UPenn, norbiz. This is the college dropout insurance agent tagging along on the law board.

    zuzu, you may have decided that I’m your enemy for life, but comments like that only make you look like a miserable troll, when in reality I’m sure you’re a wonderful person who loves animals. If there’s one thing I’ll never be ashamed about, it’s my business success.

  62. Blitzgal
    March 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    It was interesting to see Bateman describe both his material possessions (like his new Genesis CD, heh) and his murders with the same loving, obsessive detail, so the author’s intention to make the book an indictment of consumerist society was very clear within the first few chapters. However, there are only so many scenes of a man abusing a prostitute with a wire hanger that you can read without wanting to vomit. Ellis made his message very clear but by the second half of the book all the scenes of murder and torture just seemed like overkill. (I believe the wire hanger incident was in the book, it’s been several years since I read it)

  63. Erika
    March 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Mr. Cohen said in an interview that one of the women who had been asking for two years that posts be removed had threatened to sue him. “I don’t respond to people like that,” he said.

    “Mr. Cohen, the site’s co-founder, blamed Mr. Fertik [whose group ReputationDefender is representing four of the women harassed and threatened on AutoAdmit] for capitalizing on the furor. “ReputationDefender is trying to use this as a steppingstone to promote themselves, and they’re using these women as sacrificial lambs,” he said. “Instead of just coming to me and talking to me, they’ve whipped up this public frenzy that’s just causing a lot more anger and resentment.”

    They did come to you and asked you to do something about it. You dismissed them. I sincerely hope Ciolli and Cohen are never able to find a job anywhere in the future, except digging ditches perhaps.

  64. March 14, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    They did come to you and asked you to do something about it. You dismissed them.

    Exactly. I can’t believe either of them think anyone outside the nonstop celebration of stupid that is AutoAdmit is buying their horseshit. This the kind of game a 6-year-old tries to whip on grown people:

    “I didn’t do anything!”

    “That’s right, you didn’t. You just stood by while your little brother stuck his finger in a light socket and laughed at him.”

    “I didn’t know that was bad!”

    “Yes, you did. You removed the outlet cover, remember? And you’ve been told not to play with the electrical outlets before.”

    “I couldn’t stop him! I’m not the boss of him!”

    “Didn’t I ask you to keep an eye on him for me?”

    “I kept him from putting the toaster in the bathtub! I think I should be given a golden star for what I did!”

    Lame, lame, lame. You and your pal are a real pair of pants-shitting babies, Cohen.

  65. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    zuzu, it wasn’t a serious legalistic comment. It was more or less a tease. You need to avoid taking comment threads so darn seriously.

    zuzu, you may have decided that I’m your enemy for life, but comments like that only make you look like a miserable troll, when in reality I’m sure you’re a wonderful person who loves animals.

    I really *do* have to make those Troll Bingo cards one of these days.

  66. micheyd
    March 14, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    You need to avoid taking comment threads so darn seriously.

    Well I guess we can just ignore everything you say!

  67. Jodie
    March 14, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    So what kind of insurance does Cohen sell? Anyone know? I think it’s time for a boycott and letters to the companies.

  68. Ron O
    March 14, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m thrilled for defenestrated and her new motorized disco ball. Dance party at defenestrated’s! Woo Hoo!
    [/offtopic]

    I’m kind of glad I never read the book now. I don’t have the stomach for graphic violence anymore and it sounds more graphic than the movie. As for wanting to be Bateman, some folks just don’t get satire. Look at all those loons who aspired to be Gordon Gecko.

  69. Josh
    March 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    You’re right. But they’re both the same person. Gasp! Spoiler alert!

    Wait, you mean Bruce Willis is actually a ghost?!

  70. Cerberus
    March 14, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    zuzu, it wasn’t a serious legalistic comment. It was more or less a tease. You need to avoid taking comment threads so darn seriously. I don’t go around using the term “free speech”–it’s a term that a lot of people discussing this have been using.

    Let me clarify something: The WaPo article created a false impression of my policies and my philosophy on the message board. Some of the quotes were even taken from a two-year-old article on the net that was written at a time when there was a controversy over the topics being discussed on the website. I was defending the people’s right to talk about anything they wanted, to be idiots, if you will, and to use foul language if desired, but never was an endorsement of using the site for character assassination. That article did not relate to character assassination at all, which I condemn.

    In fact, I have helped many of the relatively few people out in the past who have written to me and asked for help in getting embarrassing threads removed about them.

    zuzu, you may have decided that I’m your enemy for life, but comments like that only make you look like a miserable troll, when in reality I’m sure you’re a wonderful person who loves animals. If there’s one thing I’ll never be ashamed about, it’s my business success.

    Jesusmaryjosephanduncletimothy.

    Jethro, mr. why do they attack powerless little me, you idiotic I wanna be always right inbred powermonger with no sense of decency, let me explain it to you real toot sweet quick.

    YOU. ARE. SATAN.

    Yes, that’s right. You are not a dogged defender of free speech, you are not the guy that gets the joke at the comedy club, you are not the sane man.

    YOU. ARE. SATAN.

    You are an unholy being with no regard for human beings (which include women) and have no idea that even the most stringent “free speech” protected forums in the world do not allow their posters to break the law using their forum. Stalking, harrassment, obvious libel.

    Yes, ha ha you don’t believe in free speech which is why you used it every time you could until people told you that that wasn’t free speech but because you can’t allow yourself to be wrong because that would be to admit you are flawed and GASP morally in the wrong in this whole affair, you pretend it was all a joke.

    Well, let me be the first to welcome you to the world outside whatever backwater gutter mansion you crawled out of, we’re not idiots. Yes, shock, dismay, women and feminists have working brains and more shock, tend to be more accurate and intelligent than misogynist pigs and their forum administrators.

    Yes, yes, OH NOES the mean doggie is attacking me, who is going to protect me from trolls?

    If you had an ounce of introspection or decency in your corroded aorta, you’d shut the bleep up and sit down as unfortunate parallels were drawn and the double standard manifested fully before you.

    Does free speech allow you to troll or to be a dick? Probably, but at the same time, it allows people to call you on it and to respond similarily to you.

    As a man who “got the joke” about the malicious stalkings and stepping stones to rape on your forum, I assume the lack of double standard means you would want the same to happen to you as it’s all a joke. I assume you would love for mysterious people to post semi-naked pictures of you talk about how buggerable your ass is, talk about exactly where they have seen you and post camera pictures of you in secluded locations or places you used to love to go to. I would bet you would love to have your employer told everything wrong that you or your family has ever done. Cause apparently all that to you is all in rollicking good fun. And heh, if you got raped with kitten claws that’s all in good fun too, right?

    Seriously, it isn’t a joke. You are a soulless evil entity that hates women. There is no justification for what you do.

    You are Satan. Get over it.

    Yeah, I know. Ha ha selective perception, you are mean to me.

    No, you are Satan. Get over it. Look inside your excuse for a soul and think really hard whether or not it’s a funny joke if some fat anonymous gay bloke was doing it to you. Would you be similarily nonplussed. Would you argue fervently that it’s all a joke and semi-kinda-free speech but not really if i’m proven wrong. No, with your type you’d rant about homosexuality and not understand the parallels.

    Why? Because you are a heartless, spoiled, overpriveledged sociopath Bateman wannabe posing as a human and at the risk of sounding like a broken record you are Satan.

    Now with this forum acknowledge yourself in a way that doesn’t sound like a third grader trying to explain why he shouldn’t be punished for bashing the dog’s head open with a rake because the dog became mean after the fourth swing, why don’t you explain to us exactly why you find the actions of your forum acceptable and why you have no moral problem being linked with them and protecting them against the legal rights of genuinely abused persons and why you lead their charge to punish these women relentlessly for asking you to do your damn job.

    Explain to us without resorting to lies and sophistry on how you’re always right wah wah why you so fervently protect criminals and aid their crimes against women in positions in law school and why that isn’t illegal, misogynistic, and morally equivalent with SATAN.

    You have 15 minutes, go.

  71. March 14, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    They did come to you and asked you to do something about it. You dismissed them. I sincerely hope Ciolli and Cohen are never able to find a job anywhere in the future, except digging ditches perhaps.

    Nope, Erika, they didn’t. Reputation Defender never tried to initiate contact with me, period, and when I offered to talk to them by phone, they avoided that, too. Did they maybe send all the e-mails to you instead?

  72. Lorelei
    March 14, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Cerberus,

    marry me. you really don’t fuck around. :D

    I wish more people had made comments like that on the myspace blog thread where my (sociopathic) ex attempted to defame my character.

  73. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Nope, Erika, they didn’t. Reputation Defender never tried to initiate contact with me, period, and when I offered to talk to them by phone, they avoided that, too. Did they maybe send all the e-mails to you instead?

    Nice try. Nobody’s talking about Reputation Defender.

    Jill, for instance, asked you and your pal to take down photos and information. You refused. The woman at Yale asked you to take down her photos and identifying information, and you refused. And in both cases, you published their emails and invited mockery of the students for asking to have their information removed.

    Are we sensing a pattern here? I think we are.

  74. March 14, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Jill, for instance, asked you and your pal to take down photos and information. You refused. The woman at Yale asked you to take down her photos and identifying information, and you refused. And in both cases, you published their emails and invited mockery of the students for asking to have their information removed.

    Whoa, wait a second, I published their e-mails? Where did I do that?

  75. Mnemosyne
    March 14, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Whoa, wait a second, I published their e-mails? Where did I do that?

    You mean you really did take down their information? Or is the above yet another example of your bullshit misdirection: “Well, it’s not really stalking if people just comment on what they were wearing at the gym.”

  76. March 14, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Jill, for instance, asked you and your pal to take down photos and information. You refused. The woman at Yale asked you to take down her photos and identifying information, and you refused. And in both cases, you published their emails and invited mockery of the students for asking to have their information removed.

    Come on, zuzu. Tell me about this: a woman at Yale asked me to take down photos and identifying info, and we refused?

    For your information, Anthony and I were not running the website that featured the photos (and I believe the information you’re talking about). Anthony worked very hard to convince the person who did create the website to shut the site down. And he did.

    zuzu, you’re clearly misinformed about this. You don’t have your facts straight.

  77. Roy
    March 14, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    In fact, I have helped many of the relatively few people out in the past who have written to me and asked for help in getting embarrassing threads removed about them.

    Jill, for instance, asked you and your pal to take down photos and information. You refused. The woman at Yale asked you to take down her photos and identifying information, and you refused. And in both cases, you published their emails and invited mockery of the students for asking to have their information removed..

    Whoa, wait a second, I published their e-mails? Where did I do that?

    I love that the response is not “They never asked me to take down that information” or “I took down the information” it’s “I published the e-mails asking me to take down the information?”

    Cohen, I’m pretty sure that publishing the e-mails and mocking the requests to remove information is sort of like icing on the Cake of Bad Things here.

  78. March 14, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Cohen, I’m pretty sure that publishing the e-mails and mocking the requests to remove information is sort of like icing on the Cake of Bad Things here.

    Roy, you are apparently severely misinformed, too. Neither Anthony nor I published any e-mails or mocked any requests. You are confused. You might be talking about the person who ran the separate site, and whom we convinced to shut it down.

  79. Dan
    March 14, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    Otherwise, I’ve noticed that American Psycho and Fight Club are two films that seem to attract quite a disparate group of fans–the self-involved and shallow fratboy type that doesn’t actually understand the underlying philosophy in either piece is just one subset. They’re the ones who simply love it for the violence and think it’s totally! awesome! when Brad Pitt bashes that pretty boy’s face in.

    First of all, it was Ed Norton who caved Jared Leto’s face in in “Fight Club,” and second of all, it was totally awesome.

  80. Mnemosyne
    March 14, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    Ah, the complete denial ploy. I knew it would come to that, but it’s usually more effective at the beginning of the scandal. Trying to pull it a week in just makes you look like you have short-term memory loss.

  81. March 14, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Cohen, if the facts aren’t straight I suggest you use your forum and the thousands of eyes that read it to set the facts straight. If your beef is about the so-called beauty contest, fine, you didn’t run it. We know that. But what about the harassment you protected on Autoadmit?

    Again, if the facts aren’t straight it’s up to you to protect your reputation, and a flimsy comment section of an unrelated site is not the most effective forum in which to do so.

  82. ahunt
    March 14, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Mr Cohen…

    One more time:

    if you have an anti-outing policy, then that should apply to posters and to completely unrelated female law school students who did nothing more than go to school with a handful of pathetic one-handed keyboardists

    My question may seem naive, but WHY would you institute a policy that permits cowardly bullies to anonymously harass and threaten innocent people? What possible good can come from such a policy? Why is it important to allow thugs free range?

  83. Random Observer 3
    March 14, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    At some point you have to take some responsibility for what is posted on your site when you do in fact moderate messages to some degree.

    You have posters bragging about copyright infringement allowed to continue posting. You have posters giving out initials and years for law school women which is enough to uniquely identify some of them. You have posters making detailed posts about specific people using their full names.

    There were many solution available to you: you could only only post messages after they had been checked for personal info. You could ban certain posters or certain IP addresses.

    The fact is you do not have a strictly hands-off moderation policy to hide behind.

  84. March 14, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    Why is it important to allow thugs free range?

    Because anything less would be an emasculating blow to Freedom!

    Search “Great Teacher Onizuka,” Ciolli’s handle, on that board. These buffoons knew what they were doing, and they considered themselves truth-speakers to power for doing it. The only time they ever deny any of it is when it’s brought to the public’s attention.

    They want the bravery medal for doing battle against what they perceive (mistakenly, but that’s par for the course with these chowderheads) to be the Feminazi Forces of Orwellian Oppression; only, they want to earn that medal without suffering any casualties on their side. They think they’re clever enough to get away with it, and no amount of rational thinking by any so-called “adult” is going to dissuade them.

    Seriously. That’s how they look at this. And they think people here are stupid enough not to notice.

  85. March 14, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Ahem.

    Cohen said he no longer keeps identifying information on users because he does not want to encourage lawsuits and drive traffic away. Asked why posters could not use their real names, he said, “People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them.”

    One woman e-mailed the University of Pennsylvania Law School associate dean, Gary Clinton, in February to ask for his help in persuading Ciolli remove the offensive threads. Clinton told her that since he became aware of AutoAdmit two years ago, he has had “numerous conversations about it” with Penn officials. “I’ve learned that there appears to be little legal recourse that we have as an institution,” he wrote. He said he has had several conversations with Ciolli and has “pointed out time and again how hurtful these ad hominem attacks can be to individuals, and have asked him to delete threads.” The effort, he noted, “has been largely unsuccessful.”

    Just sayin’.

  86. Ismone
    March 14, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Jarret Cohen,

    This is from the chronicle of higher education article that one of the other posters linked to:

    Mr. Cohen said he had been working on a way of creating both a filtered and an unfiltered site, and indexing only the “clean” version so its content could come up on Google searches. Now he’s not sure he wants to go forward with that effort. “Before I do, I want to be sure that I don’t look like, from a PR standpoint, that I’m just caving to ReputationDefender. That would be embarrassing and humiliating.”

    Is this an accurate quote? Are you seriously more concerned that you will be embarrassed and humiliated if you make it so that per se defamatory posts aren’t searchable by google? What about the women who are embarrassed and humiliated when googling their names turns up posts that call them sluts, accuse them of having STDs, say that they will be raped, etc.? Whose embarrassment or humiliation do you think is more justified?

    Other posters have hinted at this but let me ask you straight out: Have you ever turned down a request by a person to remove a post identifying that person and including comments about, say, their body or their class schedule or whether they should be raped or hate-fucked? Have you ever forwarded an email requesting that material be removed from your board to anyone else?

    From the posts of yours I have come across on autoadmit these past two weeks, you seem like a moderate, reasonable kind of guy, but the fact that you allow defamatory postings to remain up makes me really question that. You talked on autoadmit about making sure that the off-topic postings could not be accessed by google. I think that’s the least you should do, and I think you should go ahead with your plan, and appearances be damned.

  87. ahunt
    March 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Oh Good Lord, Ilyka, the discussion is mindnumbing.

    I’m so taken aback…I do not know where to begin.

    These loathesome thugs truly believe that their anonymity is an expression of the “courage” of their convictions!

    Anonymously threatening and harassing identified individuals for no particular reason at all is brave and honorable because “free speech” is at stake?

    Good Lord.

  88. March 14, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    Our best and brightest, ahunt. Our best and brightest.

    Are you seriously more concerned that you will be embarrassed and humiliated if you make it so that per se defamatory posts aren’t searchable by google?

    Yes, he is. Don’t you go tearing down Spanky and the gang’s little seekrit treehouse, now!

    What about the women who are embarrassed and humiliated when googling their names turns up posts that call them sluts, accuse them of having STDs, say that they will be raped, etc.? Whose embarrassment or humiliation do you think is more justified?

    That of the offending XOXO posters, obviously. The women, now, the women deserve that humiliation for taking up space in a law school, space that would otherwise be occupied by a man of prestige.

  89. March 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Jarret Cohen Says:
    March 14th, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Oh, that’s funny–posts don’t show up here unless you approve them.

    And you’re lecturing me on free speech.

    Reading for content is the key to successful discourse.

  90. Tony
    March 14, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    I have a strong suspicion — based primarily on the emailer’s writing skills — that he was not, actually, accepted to law school in the first place. But who knows.

    Jill-
    Um. Try being a writing tutor for a 1L legal writing class. You will quickly learn how terrible fellow law students are at writing. Matter-of-fact, you could go extern for a federal judge and be amazed at the insanely crappy briefs many practicing lawyers actually submit to the court.

    As far as AutoAdmit, I’ve never even heard of it before, must be a top-10 East Coast thing. Heh.

  91. ahunt
    March 14, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Okay, continuing to peruse autoadmit threads, and what stands out is the fervor of the true believers, and their unholy glee that their targets have no legal recourse.

    The latest discussion centers on whether XOXO posters can be sued, and absent outright defamation, apparently nothing can be done. It is all on Cohen, who is more interested in giving chicken-shit bullies a place to do their bullying.

    Perhaps it is time to make certain Jarret Cohen’s name is synonymous with disgusting cowardice and vile conduct …throughout the Net. For all the pleasure Cohen’s posters take in the powerlessness of their victims, and for the seemingly evident pleasure Cohen takes in that powerlessness…perhaps the response should be widespread exposure of Jarrett Cohen.

  92. zuzu
    March 14, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Whoa, wait a second, I published their e-mails? Where did I do that?

    Roy, you are apparently severely misinformed, too. Neither Anthony nor I published any e-mails or mocked any requests. You are confused. You might be talking about the person who ran the separate site, and whom we convinced to shut it down.

    “You” can be a general thing, yanno.

    Perhaps I got some of the details wrong, but here’s what I do know: Somebody at Autoadmit posted emails pertaining to the contest on the discussion board, where the requests to take them down were mocked and the women involved subjected to speculation about their sex lives. Their requests to have this taken down were ignored or refused. From Jill’s earlier post:

    What is exploitative is to use someone else’s pictures in a contest that they haven’t consented to, which can have negative consequences on their careers. I emailed the contest site owners (who are anonymous, naturally) and asked to be taken out of the contest. They didn’t even bother to respond — except by posting a clarification on the contest site that they would not be taking down any pictures until after the contest was over. I emailed them again, reiterating my request, and letting them know that I have rights to the pictures they posted, and would be taking further action if they didn’t take me out of the running. Again, no response — except that they copied my email onto their message board, where commenters roundly attacked me for being a bitch and a whore, and began speculating as to how many abortions I’ve had. At that point I started browsing their other threads, and found similar comments about all the women who had asked to have their pictures removed. Another NYU contest nominee, who is a very sweet and smart woman and whom I know fairly well, took the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” tactic, and emailed the contest creators offering to send on better pictures of herself (they took some of the pictures of her from my Flickr account, and posted one of the two of us). They posted her email on the message board as well, and a long debate ensued over whether she was cool and laid-back, or a stupid slut who employers shouldn’t hire since she is immature and insecure enough to voluntarily participate in this contest.

    You can’t win.

    Several other women requested to be taken out of the contest, and they were all attacked on the message board. Commenters regularly used the term “bitches” in place of “women” (i.e., not as an individual insult like “she’s a bitch,” but as a collective term, as in “post more pictures of hot law school bitches”). They speculated as to how promiscuous the contestants are, called us whores, talked about masturbating to our pictures, and discussed the sexual acts they would perform on us. At least one commenter made it clear that he goes to NYU Law, and that he had seen the other NYU contestant in person. So not only were random internet creeps posting this stuff, but my own classmates were.

    From the WaPo article:

    The woman e-mailed the site’s administrators and asked them to remove the material. She said she received no response. Then she tried contacting Google, which simply cited its policy that the Web site’s administrator must remove the material to clear out the search results.

  93. March 14, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    AutoAdmit idiot said…”zuzu, you may have decided that I’m your enemy for life, but comments like that only make you look like a miserable troll, when in reality I’m sure you’re a wonderful person who loves animals. If there’s one thing I’ll never be ashamed about, it’s my business success. ”
    You do realise that Zuzu is one of the owners of this site, correct? One cannot really troll one’s own blog, unless one is doing it under a pseudonym.
    Other than that…blah blah blah, poor me, everyone is so mean, I didn’t mean to do it, my initial argument got shot down so now I’m going to pretend it’s all a joke, etc.
    Would you like some cheese with that whine? Maybe a cracker?

  94. March 14, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    I have absolutely no desire to reread AP, but the ending didn’t really seem all that ambigious to me. It seemed pretty obvious that it was all in his mind- that sort of seemed like part of The Point (if it has to have one)

    I’ve only seen the movie, but I thought the ending meant something entirely different. ***SPOILERS***

    I thought Bateman was confronted with the power of real elitist privileged wealth: the family of the real Paul Allen believed that their (murdered but they didn’t know that) son was the homicidal maniac, and they used their money to cover up all evidence of the crimes, purely for the sake of the family reputation.

    So Bateman, who was fantasising about how shocking the world would find it when he chose to reveal his grisly collection, was abruptly left adrift, even more empty/hollow, and realising that repetitive slaughter was not as big a monster as blind privileged wealth.

    Too cynical?

  95. mythago
    March 14, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Jarret, the problem with the Internet is that your own words are right there for all of us to look at. So when you lie out your ass, it’s patently obvious. “Who are you gonna believe–me, or your own eyes?” is not a question you should waste time asking.

  96. Lya Kahlo
    March 15, 2007 at 6:35 am

    SO, did the coward ever admit to being a total mysogynistic enabling asshat, or has he run away?

  97. zuzu
    March 15, 2007 at 7:55 am

    There’s a comment in the mod queue from “Mark Nuckols,” who’s posting under another name in an attempt to get around the ban I gave him for attempting to post a private email exchange we had without my consent.

    Quoth Mark/Evgenia:

    well, I see that your “you can’t post a private email without consent” policy doesn’t apply universally. Do you have consent to post this email of Bateman’s. (As it is, I find the kind of vicious and idiotic diatribes at Aut-admit to be only slightly more deplorable than the sanctimonious parlor radicalism at blogs like this.)

    Reading comprehension is your friend, dear boy. From the post:

    In his post on AutoAdmit, the author of this lovely email (who appropriately calls himself lonelyvirgin) writes, “I post this here as a warning to all those who would try to regulate the more antisocial posters- we have the power now.”

    To review: Jill took the email from the perp’s own post on the message board bragging about the email. You tried to post my email here without my consent.

    Really, if you can’t see the difference, you don’t belong in law school.

    Moreover, you *still* haven’t shown that there’s any outside source for this “T14” business, other than the asswipes (ooh! I said a dirty word!) at AutoAdmit. Even by your own logic, if there’s no reason to draw a line separating Cornell and Georgetown from UVA and Penn, then there’s no reason not to include UCLA and UTA as well.

    Dude, you really need to get over this.

  98. zuzu
    March 15, 2007 at 8:00 am

    Really, if you can’t see the difference, you don’t belong in law school.

    Oh, I forgot. You’re not in law school anymore, you’re an International Man of Mystery. My bad.

  99. March 15, 2007 at 8:50 am

    “Mr. Cohen, the site’s co-founder, blamed Mr. Fertik [whose group ReputationDefender is representing four of the women harassed and threatened on AutoAdmit] for capitalizing on the furor. “ReputationDefender is trying to use this as a steppingstone to promote themselves, and they’re using these women as sacrificial lambs,” he said. “Instead of just coming to me and talking to me, they’ve whipped up this public frenzy that’s just causing a lot more anger and resentment.”

    The women did go to you. You ignored them.

    All of your dancing around the technicalities–oh, but I didn’t post their information, blah blah blah–doesn’t change the fact that these women did in fact approach you. And you ignored them.

    Stop lying, you sniveling fuckmonkey.

    As for “whipping up a public frenzy” and causing “more anger and resentment,” take a look at what the posters on your site did to those women. Lying about them, invading their privacy, posting their personal contact information, and encouraging people to photograph them at the gym (after talking about when they went to the gym). Now you’re whining about the fact that you’re being treated unfairly.

    Oh, poor widdle bayyyybeee. Here’s a tissue. Wipe your nose. Stop your whining, boyo.

    Act like a spineless bully, you’re gonna get blowback. I know it’s all fun and games while you and your band of inbred misogynist assclowns harass and slander women with impunity.

    Not so fun anymore now that you’re being held accountable though, is it? Not so cavalier about this when it’s your name and your ass on the line, is it?

    Poor baby. Poor widdle baby.

  100. March 15, 2007 at 9:25 am

    Oh the poor boy, mercy dearie me, I have boobies and a (p)agina so what do I know, but I’m starting to suspect a genuine lack of mental capacity on the part of this AutoAdmit defender. Surely it was determined long ago that he had no future in the legal profession, except perhaps as a courier?

    Perhaps this one needs to back away from his keyboard and spend some down time pondering his future employment prospects. I’ve put money on their not being very “high status,” but what would I know from status? I’m just a girl!

  101. zuzu
    March 15, 2007 at 9:39 am

    The women did go to you. You ignored them.

    Yep. And if they hired Reputation Defender, and you ignored them when they asked you to stop, you were effectively telling the women to fuck off.

    Agent-principal and all that.

  102. March 15, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Hey! Don’t pick on couriers. I wouldn’t trust Mr. Girls are Stinky with serving any of MY important legal paperwork.

  103. Norah
    March 15, 2007 at 10:54 am

    I think people find it so shocking and controversial because you can hardly find anything else quite like it on the net.

    You Auto-Assholes are talking about women’s body parts and speculating on their fuckability, and you think you’re inventing the wheel? Anyone with boobs can hear all that same tired old shit just by boarding public transportation.

    But you really cross the line by posting identifying information (or allowing someone’s post to remain– you’re the mod; you’re responsible). You may think you’re “kidding” (and I have my doubts about that), but you act like we don’t live in a world where sick fucks violate and kill women and throw them away like garbage. Tell me, what are the chances that your little cesspool may attract some of those? Hmm?

  104. March 15, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Maybe I’ve been out of college too long, but I find it difficult to believe that any one of any age would be fool enough to send that email to faculty. There’s no way anyone could think that would make a good impression or have any effect but to make them look like a fool.

    I mean, horses when she was 10? And $150 presented as an excessive amount?

    That letter is so embarrassing to the writer! Did he really send it? Really?

  105. JennaJ
    March 15, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t the Auto-A people publishing private emails in a public forum be in and of itself a copyright violation? I’m under the impression that the writer of the email owns the copyright.

  106. SpiritofMargaretBrent
    March 15, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Failing to remove the women’s photos, contact information and schedule information (gym times, classes) was grossly irresponsible. It’s not free speech, it’s enabling stalking.

    As to this quote from The Washington Post article:

    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.

    It’s a classic case of people living in glass houses. A bit of internet searching on my part yielded a bunch of info about these 2 including business info, what may be their parents contact information, investments made on behalf of one when he was a minor and possibly his mother’s maiden name. Responsibility and ethics prevent me from posting the details. I could use the old “freedom of speech” reasoning, but it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s wrong. Not to mention the impact on innocent people (the parents or mistaken identity if I’m wrong). That’s what being responsible & ethical is about.

    Not backtracking and trying to squirm your way out when you have to face the consequences of your actions. It’s enough to make one wish Thelma & Louise were real and available for some manners lessons for these 2.

  107. SpiritofMargaretBrent
    March 15, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Re: the contention that neither the women nor Reputation Defender tried to resolve things with Ciolli & Cohen prior to the news stories, etc., here is ReputationDefender’s statement on it:

    1. ReputationDefender did not contact either the Washington Post or Good Morning America about this story. They both approached us.
    2. ReputationDefender emailed directly with Anthony Ciolli, Jarret Cohen’s partner and owner of the site at the time, before anything was ever published in any paper about our campaign to clean up AutoAdmit, asking that damaging content be removed, and saying we would be “the first to commend” removal of the content.

    3. In the same email exchange with Ciolli, we asked that our request be forwarded to Cohen.

    4. At least three of our clients sent emails to the AutoAdmit contact address, as well as to both Ciolli, the jcohen@autoadmit.com email address, as well as webmaster addresses for the AutoAdmit/XOXO site, as long ago (in one case) as mid-2005 and as recently as February 2007, requesting very politely that content about them be removed. No action was taken.

  108. Subgrrl8
    March 16, 2007 at 1:53 am

    To Mr. Auto-Admit:
    Oooh! Poor me! I didn’t know being an adult meant actually taking responsibility for the forums that I create! Boo-hoo! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

    These people are seriously whacked. They can’t seem to follow the complete login used by the people who are suing them. Awesome. Social evolution, here we come!

    OTish: I feel the need to weigh in on the American Psycho thing. It was horribly graphic, although about on par with whatever they show on the Law & Order shows in flashback. I got through the whole thing in about a day, I was completely mesmerized by the prose. I have a low-brow sense of the literate though, so take that in its context.
    However, what is described is no less than what the Marquis de Sade would revel in. I distinctly saw a Libertine bent to the novel, which intrigued me as I’d just had a class on the subject. I was one of the only people in my class of 20+ who could actually finish the Sade novel we were given to read. Maybe I’m desensitized, or maybe I can just read a novel without internalizing whatever is inside. *Shrug* I don’t pretend to really know which it is.

    I do know that Libertine literature is exactly supposed to shock your morals, and Psycho definitely does that. Libertine literature doesn’t necessarily revel in violence, and Sade can be argued to not be an actual Libertine (he was too sensational, too focused on the sex acts themselves and not on the social structures themselves, etc.). It also played on some moral ambiguity within myself, much as Laclos’ Dangerous Liaisons did. Was it just me, or was the Marquise’s character the only one in any way three-dimensional and empathetic? Although by the end, I found myself believing that human love is a fallacy, and that all romantic relationships are all about power. I uh got through to the end of that phase. I was pretty astounded at how an epistolary novel from the 18th century could affect me so. Especially because I hate epistolary novels.

    As for the movie of “Psycho”, I have to say it was really well done. The director, a feminist director for the most part, really I thought did a good job of highlighting the undertones of the novel- how anti-materialism, anti-violence, anti-sexism, etc. it was. It’s pretty subtle, and I’d have to watch it again to really get the iconic visul clues down on paper, but I thought it was really good.

    That said, people who idolize the character Bateman really has a screw loose. That’s not who you idolize. That’s who you look out for in yur everyday life. It is a warning.

    /End OTish Libertine Literature rant

  109. Subgrrl8
    March 16, 2007 at 1:56 am

    Please excuse my typos. I am in the process of renovating my fingers. They have a few plaster layers missing.

  110. edith
    March 16, 2007 at 6:45 am

    Yeah. Princeton Review dorks, all grown up and talking about law school. I wondered where those “Yalie08” types would end up in a few years. Doing the same thing, I guess.

  111. bmc90
    March 16, 2007 at 11:53 am

    The law schools need to set up a virtual law clinc where students can get credit and be supervised under various states’ student practice rules to bring appropriate legal action against cyberstalking and cyberbulling in those situations where it is feasible. The clinic may need to contract for some paralegal help, but a practitioner who has done a few of these cases (we just had one in my state – the defendant turned out to be the daughter of a local pol – where the identity of the person making the defamatory remarks was discovered and nailed). Also, the law schools can make incoming students sign consent forms allowing the school to obtain identifying information from websites if a student is being cyberstalked or bullied, make that a code of conduct violation, and kick them out on their asses. This would be a real cinch for the private law schools (no goverment action, First Amendment not involved). It would only take a few cases succeeding to make people think twice. Finally, if you are lucky enough to be getting acceptance letters from these schools, call and say you are trying to pick but have a concern about the atmosphere on campus (virtual and otherwise) and ask what the school is doing about it. If Penn thinks it’s losing top students over this, believe me, the will FIND a way to make an example out of a few people.

  112. Ismone
    March 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    What kind of scares me about this whole think is the lack of a professional culture. I’m not usually a big fan of indoc., but the legal profession could really stand to have certain unspoken, universally accepted rules about proper and improper behavior when you relate to other attorneys and law students. It is one thing to gossip and let off steam about someone you don’t like in private, or mock them publicly for bad behavior, it is quite another to engage in ad hom attacks.

  113. Ismone
    March 16, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Jarret Cohen has posted a challenge to Reputation Defender on AutoAdmit. He’s claiming that he was ambushed by the whole thing–that when he spoke to the WaPo he didn’t know about the particularly nasty threads, and hadn’t checked his admin. email in a few months, which is why he hadn’t gotten the complaints from the targeted women.

    Be that as it may, I still think his response (asking for a joint statement with RepDefender) is immature. Sounds like he feels attacked, but even if they were ham-handed or heavy-handed, they were just doing their job. I can see why RD wouldn’t turn over client’s names without extracting a promise that JC would delete the offending posts–because people have been ridiculed for trying to get things removed in the past (although I don’t know if JC was part of it) and because JC and the posters have criticized people publicly (one of the women’s names is mentioned in his long statement) for the way that they asked the posts be taken down, I wouldn’t want to give over a list of names either.

    Protestations of good faith aside, JC has said that he won’t work with people who hire RD. Like zuzu pointed out earlier up the thread, what is wrong with dealing with the agent in a principal-agent relationship? If some of these women would rather spend their time, oh, studying, instead of reading foul things about themselves so they can request they be taken down, can’t say I blame them.

    You may notice he never returned to answer my questions in post 86. So again, not convinced by this show of good faith. Yeah, it stings to be ambushed in the way he was, but not as much as being called a slut with herpes stings.

  114. Sickle
    March 16, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Yet we have identified a curious individual from a single law.utexas IP whose identity makes us wonder. … The guy on this IP spends a lot of time here. Or at least an alter ego who uses the same computer does.

    http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html

    Didn’t someone claim that xoxo didn’t track IP addresses? I tried to find it, but couldn’t. Maybe I’m remembering it wrong.

    Cohen appears to be something of a narcissist, though. As if that wasn’t obvious to everyone anyway.

  115. elwo
    March 16, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Hey ismone — his excuse is that he hadn’t checked his admin email “for a couple of months.”

    Well, hey, that makes it all better.
    No wonder the boards just suck — no one’s at home.
    It isn’t a principle of so-called free speech (puh-leeeze), it’s just good old fashioned sloth.

    Where’s the free market when you need it?
    Someone should actually RUN a board with the information, and moderate the heck out of the thugs.
    Then it would be useful.
    This s just mu wrestling.

  116. Hector B.
    March 16, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    just a few comments:
    I wanted to see if there was any update; imagine my surprise to find feministe reproducing copyrighted material w/o the permission of its sick and twisted author, “lonelyvirgin”. And, for the benefit of the doubter, although truth is more unbelievable than fantasy, according to the Washington Post, the one student’s father did indeed steal to buy her horses. Please look up the article for yourself:
    “Ex-World Bank Official Disappears From Trial
    “From: The Washington Post | Date: October 21, 1994 | Author: Rajiv Chandrasekaran

    “Federal and local investigators are searching for a former World Bank official who disappeared this week during his trial in Loudoun County on charges of using forged checks to buy thoroughbred horses for his 10-year-old daughter. ”

    Finally, I am curious about how the Autoadmit/Reputation Defender story came to the attention of the Washington Post and Good Morning America. The Yale Law School Career Service beat is not regularly covered by the national media. Reputation Defender had an economic motive to approach the news media, and their leader got valuable air time. Autoadmit had every motive to keep this story out of the media, although apparently site traffic is way up. To me, the students would have had mixed emotions about going to the media: while public opinion turned against Autoadmit, in the process their private traumas would have been spread by two (or more) of the largest media outlets in America. Thus I tend to disbelieve Reputation Defender when they say they did not approach the Post or ABC. Does anyone have any insights?

  117. Hector B.
    March 16, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Also, there are three moderated discussion boards for law students and prospective students: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.com, http://www.lawschoolparadise.com/forums, and http://www.nontradlaw.net, as well as the original princeton review law school forum. But Autoadmit has the most volume.

  118. March 16, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    An email posted on a public online message board is not copyrighted material. Try again. And next time, try to know what you’re talking about.

  119. Hector B.
    March 16, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Requirements for copyright: an original work of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium of expression. formalities are no longer required.
    assuming “lonelyvirgin” created his email, it was an original work of authorship. It was fixed in a tangible medium of expression upon creation, because RAM counts as a tangible medium of expression. I hate to offend the hostess, but your understanding of copyright would seem to be lacking.

  120. March 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Hector, if that’s the only defense you have in favor of XOXO you need to go back to undergrad.

  121. SpiritofMargaretBrent
    March 16, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    And what exactly does a crime by a student’s father have to do with her? Why would that even be of interest to the law school faculty?

    Jarret Cohen claims that he is amenable to removing threads with the women’s names. Yet names one of them in one of his statements about this. Because she had the audacity to threaten to litigate in an e-mail. So, let me see if I understand his reasoning, it’s ok to harass women by name (posting details about contact info & whereabouts) in threads under the cover of site provided anonymity, but it’s not ok to respond to that by threatening to sue? Those “men” (and I use the term loosely because their actions are too immature and cowardly to qualify for any adult human being status) are lucky that she decided to pursue litigation vs. a more violent means which could be construed as self-defense.

    Plus, there’s the everchanging story. Oh, we’re in favor of free speech! Oh, we didn’t know about it!

  122. Sickle
    March 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    I wanted to see if there was any update; imagine my surprise to find feministe reproducing copyrighted material w/o the permission of its sick and twisted author, “lonelyvirgin”.

    QQ more.

  123. Jack B.
    March 16, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    Anthony Ciolli’s website has been a cesspool of racists and misogynists for years. It’s amazing that it took this long for Anthony Ciolli to finally resign as “Chief Education Director” of AutoAdmit. If ever there was a title as pathetic as that, I’d be curious to know.

    But Anthony Ciolli should not be off the hook just because of his resignation. Folks, we are talking about a future potential attorney here. The New York Bar and his future employers need to be made aware of Ciolli’s actions. Or rather, his lack of action in refusing to remove defamatory comments from his message board. Although Jarret Cohen is equally responsible, Mr. Ciolli needs to be held accountable for what he has done. It is because of Anthony Ciolli’s refusal to remove libelous and defamatory material on his message boards that the careers of several young law students are jeopardized.

    We need to rise up and take a stand here. We need to let the world know what a low-life, unethical human being Anthony Ciolli is. He does not deserve a spot in the New York Bar nor a respected law firm after what he’s done.

  124. SpiritofMargaretBrent
    March 17, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Virginia Law Weekly has an article about it which features the perspectives of the women from there who were targeted:


  125. March 17, 2007 at 10:57 am

    assuming “lonelyvirgin” created his email, it was an original work of authorship

    HectorB, you do not have a bright future in IP law ahead of you.

  126. SpiritofMargaretBrent
    March 17, 2007 at 11:06 am

    The link didn’t go through in my previous post:

    It’s not showing up in preview, so here’s the plain URL:

    http://www.lawweekly.org/?module=displaystory&story_id=1575&edition_id=58&format=html

    From the article:

    The women also told the Law Weekly that one of the more frustrating aspects of the “Top 14” events was that AutoAdmit’s administrators refused to remove any of the discussion from their message board and declined to prevent the information from being accessible through Google. In a recent Washington Post article, then-administrator Anthony Ciolli was quoted as saying that he “almost never censor[s] content, no matter how abhorrent it may be” because he is a “strong believer[] in freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas.”

    and:

    Similarly, some First Amendment activists quotes in recent media reports about AutoAdmit cautioned against censorship, suggesting instead that victims of online harassment pursue remedies in court if the attacks rise to the level of actionable tort or crime.

    In response to this argument, Dean Jeffries notes that “the First Amendment protects a great many instances of speech that is deeply reprehensible. No one wants to study and work in an environment in which tort and crime are the only norms of personal responsibility and behavior. As members of the Law School community, we have obligations toward each other that go beyond the commands of the law.”

Comments are closed.