Author: has written 5285 posts for this blog.

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

105 Responses

  1. Eugene Volokh
    Eugene Volokh June 13, 2007 at 6:25 pm |

    Forgive me, but could you please point to where in my posts I suggest that the plaintiffs “take it like a man” or “shut [their] pretty little pie-hole[s],” or argue that plaintiffs “think that it’s just a case of boys being boys and overly-sensitive little girls whining about nothing”?

    Eugene Volokh

  2. Kyra
    Kyra June 13, 2007 at 6:36 pm |

    “Take it like a man?”

    How often do these men whom they’re supposed to take it like, have to put up with abuse like that?

    How often do any men in male-dominated professions have to deal with what women deal with trying to work there?

    People tell women to “take it like a man,” when the men in question don’t have to take it. In essence, they are expecting that women shoulder the burdens of harassment and then walk as tall as the various men who don’t have that added burden.

    And it’s the very definition of a double standard, to mock women for not living up to higher expectations/demands as well as men live up to lower ones.

  3. Dan S.
    Dan S. June 13, 2007 at 6:46 pm |

    In comments to her later post on this, I argued that this behavior wasn’t actually about sexual desire; Ann replies:

    I’m well aware of feminist literature. I’ve been reading it for 40 years and living through all the phases. Believe me I know this stuff. But within that analysis, I’m saying that the women are behaving according to traditional stereotypes by seeking male protectors and premising their lawsuit on victimhood and sensitivity. I don’t think this helps women overcome conventional domination. These poor, pathetic men drool over pretty women. I say laugh at them. Call them poor pathetic me[n?] drooling over pictures on the internet . . .

    Also: “I have consistently said that if they can prove their [they’ve?] received true threats, it’s different.

  4. Scott Eric Kaufman
    Scott Eric Kaufman June 13, 2007 at 7:24 pm |

    Ann will be hear spouting some nonsense about vortices in five, four, three, two…

  5. manda
    manda June 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm |

    My goodness, Ann Althouse’s self-obsession knows no bounds. How can she possibly liken people criticizing her words and actions (that she made public or agreed to have publicized) to threats of violence and the public posting of private information? Notice that she listed this post as “anti-Althousiana” among others. Does she honestly think EVERYTHING has something to do with her?

  6. RKMK
    RKMK June 13, 2007 at 8:33 pm |

    Jesus fucking Christ Jill, those AA assholes have a thread about your sister, posting a link to her picture. I wonder what Ann Althouse thinks what crime she committed? Having her picture taken while being female while being related to someone who writes a blog and attends law school while also being female?

    I can’t wait for these fuckers to get theirs. Christ.

  7. mythago
    mythago June 13, 2007 at 9:17 pm |

    I’m no fan of lawsuits either.

    Um, you’re a law student, right? And Althouse is a law professor? The problem with lawsuits is what, exactly?

    Perhaps we should abolish the courts, make every lawyer stick to something nice and quiet like contractual analysis or transactional law, and settle our disputes with trial-by-ordeal. Then we wouldn’t have any nasty lawsuits.

  8. sassywho
    sassywho June 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm |

    Wow, you should feel honored that men find you attractive enough to rape… no really, it does wonders for my self-esteem. And then I have a giggle-fest with my girlfriends over who has been harassed more.

    boys don’t mean anything by it…. they just get out of hand sometimes…. it’s disgusting who can justify this behavior

  9. Ann Althouse
    Ann Althouse June 13, 2007 at 9:40 pm |

    I’ve never written “take it like a man” or “shut your pretty little pie-hole” or anything close to that tone or content. This is a vicious distortion and misreading. Shame on you.

  10. wren
    wren June 13, 2007 at 10:22 pm |

    This is the first time I’ve ever actually read any of the comments. I’m disgusted.

    Who knew? In between the liver and kidneys and heart and lungs there’s room for an entire black hole.

    These guys officially fail at life. Game over, the end. Seriously, what a vast wasteland their internal lives must be, to provide an environment in which this kind of hate can even begin to grow, let alone pass the filter that makes them think it’s okay to express. Shudder. Jill, I’m so sorry you’ve had to deal with this.

  11. mcmc
    mcmc June 13, 2007 at 10:34 pm |

    I’m saying that the women are behaving according to traditional stereotypes by seeking male protectors and premising their lawsuit on victimhood and sensitivity. I don’t think this helps women overcome conventional domination.

    So filing a lawsuit = seeking male protectors? So a really manly woman would just seek out her harrassers and shoot them or something, because seeking legal redress is a pussy thing to do? Okay, good to know.

  12. Olive
    Olive June 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm |

    I am having difficulty finding a thread on AutoAdmit with vicious threats against Ann Althouse. (No trouble finding plenty about Jill.) Perhaps I misunderstood the comment? I am the first to admit I was too lazy to look very hard.

  13. Dan S.
    Dan S. June 14, 2007 at 12:24 am |

    Is #10 actually Ann? Do we have to go over the bit about how comments not inside the little quote marks are understood to be interpretations – correct or not – and not direct quotes (or even indicative of the tone?

    So a really manly woman would just seek out her harrassers and shoot them or something,

    ‘Jane Doe’s got a gun . . .
    What did that poster do? . . – ah, not worth it. But to the obvious tune.

    Olive – it’s there, can’t remember where the link was . . . Not saying it’s wonderful, but it’s quite a different world from what both Jill and the plaintiffs were subjected to. Interestingly enough, it is kinda along the lines (perhaps a bit milder) of Ann’s representation of the allegations.

    Mythago – over at Patterico’s some commenters were musing over a return to dueling . . .

  14. JackGoff
    JackGoff June 14, 2007 at 12:44 am |

    Come on, Ann. This lolrus can flounce with better class than you.

  15. sly civilian
    sly civilian June 14, 2007 at 1:21 am |

    i’m so glad she showed up. you chant the name, and the genie comes out of the bottle. and calls you names, responding in the least substantive way possible.

    gawd, i love academia.

  16. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:27 am |

    And I could put together tons of terrible things people have said about me — people who are actively trying to destroy my reputation, who publish many lies about me, and who allow their commenters to post using my name (even after I have repeatedly requested the deletion of those comments).

    But you won’t. Hell, you won’t even mention it, you STOIC, you.

  17. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:33 am |

    and, I love, “a VICIOUS distortion.” Ann, I know you’re constitutionally incapable of paying attention to anything that doesn’t have you in it, but could we -try- to focus for a minute here?

    “I want to brutally rape that Jill slut”
    “I’m 98% sure that she should be raped (if only in Internet Land)”
    “Official Jill Filipovic RAPE Thread”
    “I have it on good authority that Jill F has rape fantasies”
    “what a useless guttertrash whore. i hope someone uses my pink, fleshy-textured cylindrical body to violate her” (from someone posting under the name “fleshlight”)
    “for minimising this tragedy, she deserves a brutal raping”
    “She’s a normal-sized girl that I’d bang violently,” “maybe you’d have to kill her afterwards” (in a thread titled “Be honest, everyone here would FUCK THE SHIT out of Jill Feministe”)
    “that nose ring is fucking money, rape her immediately”
    “Legal liability from posting pic showing Jill fucking?” (talking about photoshopping my head onto a pornstar’s body)
    “she would be a good hate fuck”
    “[Duke rape accuser] or ‘Jill’: who has more semen drip of their abortion scarred, fat asses?”

    …is VICIOUS.

    Distilling your foolish, sexist tripe to a foolish, sexist phrase that you didn’t actually utter: not so much.

    Hell, it isn’t even that much of a mischaracterization, although please, feel free to argue the point and -totally ignore- the shit that’s happened to -other people that aren’t you- and thus derail the whole thread. Maybe you could videotape yourself doing it. With a glass of wine.

    also, coming from people who -know what you look like and where you live and go to your school and you don’t even know who they are,- is, y’know, -some- people find it a tad threatening. We don’t have your constitution of steel, Ann, I just guess.

  18. Thers
    Thers June 14, 2007 at 1:38 am |

    Oh, that is Ann Althouse up there, all right. It has the true flavor, and I’d bet you a nickel that if a mod here resolves the IP, it’s Madison WI.

    Let’s not let her wriggle off this hook. Here she is with her thoughts after her own name came up on AA:

    I “really do see” that a “young woman” — that is, a woman with less experience learning how to deal with life’s hard knocks — might be “disturbed.” Being disturbed doesn’t mean you are justified in making causal connections between the things that disturbed you and other problems you are having in life, like not getting the job you wanted. And being disturbed doesn’t mean you ought to have the power to control the things that are disturbing you.

    To say that I can understand how something disturbed you doesn’t mean I think you’re better off getting disturbed than laughing it off the way I did. It just means I’m not going to criticize you for not having the ability to laugh it off. But I still do think that you should.

    You “should laugh it off.” Right.

    This sort of thing is genuinely noxious and Jill’s characterization is correct.

  19. Toonces
    Toonces June 14, 2007 at 1:46 am |

    Clearly, Ann Althouse is a freezedried bag of delusional narcissism, who seems to really hate young women and thinks that threats to rape are actually compliments. That is pretty much how I read her ludicrous, self-aggrandizing statements in this article.

    I’m sorry you had to deal with that ugliness from the AutoAdmit sociopaths, Jill. I’m so glad that there is a hope of justice being served for those young women who were mercilessly trashed and stalked by those pornsick losers.

  20. Mipa
    Mipa June 14, 2007 at 2:51 am |

    Jill,
    This whole thing must just make you so incredibly mad. There are just no words to describe Ann’s stupidity. I don’t know how you can stand it. If it is any comfort, I am raging right along with you. Kudos to you for ripping her apart yet again. All I can say is that I hope she is embarassed. What a joke.

  21. Smartparol
    Smartparol June 14, 2007 at 4:27 am |

    I’ve never written “take it like a man” or “shut your pretty little pie-hole” or anything close to that tone or content. This is a vicious distortion and misreading. Shame on you.

    Ms. Althouse:

    No, of course you didn’t actually write “take it like a man” or “shut your pretty little pie-hole”. It is what you were directly implying with your vapid, self-absorbed & thuggish little screed. But you know that. You & all the other low-rent Maureen Dowd knockoffs who make vanity-gasaming weasel-wording hackery their one-trick pony meal ticket.

    …or anything close to that tone or content.

    Bullshit. And you know that better than anybody. If you’d just grow up & owned what you said once in a while (or even once, PERIOD.) you might not find yourself held under scrutiny & offered up to ridicule so often. But then I’d be deprived of the life-affirming spectacle of Jill cutting a self-righteous jerk raised well above her rightful place in the world down to size. Not to say she’s doing it for my benefit, naturally.

    This is a vicious distortion and misreading.

    “This” is someone with an active brain & a pair of sharp eyes calling out a buch of creeps who engage in cyber-stalking & the enablers who defend them. This includes you, Ann Althouse. By blowing the whole thing off with whatever pisspoor excuse you come up with you are letting them get away with it. You are telegraphing quite clearly to a herd of viciously small-minded pigs & others like them that what they’re doing is just fine. You are making it perfectly clear that issuing threats of physical & sexual assault against someone who’s pointing out the how’s & why’s of the piggishness of your activities is nothing to be embarrassed about or ashamed of. You are letting them know that no matter how ugly & indefensable their behavior gets, there will be plenty of supid people saying smart-sounding things who will come to their defense. This includes you, Ann Althouse.

  22. mustelid
    mustelid June 14, 2007 at 6:05 am |

    Y’know, I think I’d like for Ann to come back, and explain how this whole disgusting ‘gang bang party’ thing w/ someone’s personal info isn’t a threat. Perhaps Ann wishes women would respond by finding these morons’ personal info and posting something similar about them?

    C’mon, Ann, I’m dying to hear from you on this. Should women ‘laugh off’ threats by responding in kind? Perhaps we should respond in time-honored macho fashion w/ a punch to the offender’s nose?

    Forcing these scumbags out into daylight and holding them legally responsible for their assholery seems like the perfect reasonable response. Jill, I’m so sorry you and the other women have had to put up w/ this shit.

  23. Vera Venom
    Vera Venom June 14, 2007 at 7:22 am |

    “I’ve never written “take it like a man” or “shut your pretty little pie-hole” or anything close to that tone or content. This is a vicious distortion and misreading. Shame on you. ”

    It’s hilarious* that this is the only thing she** can think to post about. Her disgusting defense of rape threats, her disgusting misogyny, her disguting self-obsession, her disgusting dismissal of harrassment, intimidation and threats of violence against women – that’s all okay. But shame on Jill for not qutoing her directly.

    Goodness she’s an ass. She’s just pissed that Jill has made it impossible for Ann to deny any of it.

    * – by hilarious I mean puke-incuding
    **- assuming that is really her

  24. Dan S.
    Dan S. June 14, 2007 at 7:30 am |

    I don’t understand why she refuses to recognize that the allegations don’t just concern some internet slackers commenting on the Does’ attractiveness in unfortunately crude terms – that in fact, she writes as if she was trying to intentionally minimize them. What’s up with that?

  25. micheyd
    micheyd June 14, 2007 at 7:50 am |

    That’s what Ann does, she comes onto threads and says “I didn’t say THAT” and runs off, not addressing the substance of any criticism against her.

    I mean, Jill used a figure of speech, for SHAME!

  26. Elaine Vigneault
    Elaine Vigneault June 14, 2007 at 8:44 am |

    The majority of people don’t sue when they’re wronged. But the majority don’t change the world, either.

  27. sunflwrmoonbeam
    sunflwrmoonbeam June 14, 2007 at 9:57 am |

    Apparently Ann thinks using the law to stand up for yourself hurts women.

    “But I think these elite, privileged women are terribly wrong and that many women are hurting their potential by listening to them. They are leading women backward.”

    Wow, I guess I should just learn to like abuse so I can be further empowered? Uh, no.

  28. kali
    kali June 14, 2007 at 10:02 am |

    I am really confused here. How can anyone think those comments don’t constitute a credible threat? Because it’s more likely that the commenters were “joking” than not? I mean, you can say that about absolutely any threat that’s made on the internet. It just seems to me, that by whatever standards of “threat” Althouse etc. are using, threatening speech doesn’t even exist. At least, I would like to see an example of what these people would consider to be an actual threat. I can’t imagine what one would look like. Surely tracking a victim’s movements, surreptitiously photographing her and talking in public about how you’d like to rape her, are about as credible as a threat can get. How could you escalate that behaviour without following through into an actual attack?

  29. wellie
    wellie June 14, 2007 at 10:22 am |

    aa said:

    Shame on you.

    yes, jill, shame on you. shame on you for inciting these poor little internet losers, making them say things about wanting to sodomize you, involve you in brutal rape fantasies, threaten your sister. shame on you for forcing these men to seek you out in public, comment on your looks, your weight, your posture even. shame on you for wanting to hold those assholes accountable for what they say and do *gasp*

    shame on you, ms althouse, for hiding under the guise of academia and self-righteousness. for essentially encouraging the frat boy mentality that these jerks purport. for utilizing a victim’s personal attacks as some sort of platform to grandstand and self-promote.

    it’s not about you.

    jill, i’m so sorry.

  30. Dan S.
    Dan S. June 14, 2007 at 10:24 am |

    your vapid, self-absorbed & thuggish little screed

    Come now, “thuggish” is going too far- after all, Althouse isn’t a member of a 19th century Indian criminal cult devoted to the goddess Kali (who has apparently shown up here in comments!) involved in assassinations, so it’s clearly inaccurate . . .

    I mean, Jill used a figure of speech, for SHAME!

    Ah, but a figure of speech is related to fiction, which Ann thinks shouldn’t be used to teach kids reading – clearly Jill’s just aiding the devious conspiracy of novel-loving teachers to force make-believe onto poor innocent children against their will.

    (I’m still thinking that it’s maybe a parody-Ann, though. Although sometimes I wonder if it’s not all a parody-Ann . . .)

  31. Kristen
    Kristen June 14, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    I am really confused here. How can anyone think those comments don’t constitute a credible threat? Because it’s more likely that the commenters were “joking” than not? I mean, you can say that about absolutely any threat that’s made on the internet

    I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head. I think some people think of the internet as this space that is completely disconnected from reality. Perhaps, for them it is. But in reality (or my reality at least), the internet is closer to each of us as our next door neighbor. If it wouldn’t be legal to print it as an ad in the local paper, I don’t think its legal to say it on the internet.

  32. Thomas
    Thomas June 14, 2007 at 11:37 am |

    Ann Althouse is a freezedried bag of delusional narcissism, who seems to really hate young women and thinks that threats to rape are actually compliments.

    This bears repeating. Perhaps it should be its own thread.

  33. mythago
    mythago June 14, 2007 at 12:11 pm |

    Ms. Althouse is clearly suffering from professor’s disease: SHE is the one who asks the questions, YOU give the answers, missy.

    It must drive her bonkers that the Internet isn’t afraid to contradict her because she has the power to give it a lower grade.

  34. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub June 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm |

    Ann, STFU.

    These women have had their personal information publicized, have seen these knuckle-dragging inbreeds encourage each other to stalk one of them, have seen lies posted about them, and have seen invitations to “gang bangs” involving them.

    I realize you’ve got quite a thing for acting like a high-school bully and shrugging off bullying, what with Boobiegate and all, but seriously? Get a fucking grip.

    The only person who mischaracterized things in this whole mess–besides the AutoAdmit inbred wank-jobs–was YOU and your merry band of misogynists.

    But do turn this back around to the cult of Victimized Ann Althouse, since it’s all about your pwecious fee-fees. Most bullies can dish it out but cannot take it.

    Rack off back to the playground, bully.

  35. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm |

    oh god, thanks for reminding me that she actually TEACHES. and has TENURE (probably, right?)

    there is no god.

  36. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm |

    I’ve never written “take it like a man” or “shut your pretty little pie-hole” or anything close to that tone or content. This is a vicious distortion and misreading. Shame on you.

    …which is why it wasn’t in quotes. In other words, it was a characterization of what you said, not what you said verbatim. Was it a hyperbolic characterization? Yes. But I think it does accurately represent the sentiments behind your posts and your comments.

    maybe she could sue!!! i’m sure in THIS case it’d be TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.

    for SHAME, Jill. SHAAAAAAAAAAAAME

  37. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm |

    I’m still thinking that it’s maybe a parody-Ann, though. Although sometimes I wonder if it’s not all a parody-Ann .

    Dan: actually Althouse herself is a parody of this fine, fair and balanced…um, person.

  38. belledame222
    belledame222 June 14, 2007 at 1:09 pm |

    fiction, which Ann thinks shouldn’t be used to teach kids reading

    Get out.

  39. Sabrina Star
    Sabrina Star June 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm |

    “Apparently Ann thinks using the law to stand up for yourself hurts women.”

    This sums it all up perfectly.

    I love how often we see people standing up for “free speech” while at the same time silencing people who have been harmed.

  40. Sally
    Sally June 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm |

    You see, fiction is not “true.” Unlike things like history, which are “factual.”

    (I cannot imagine any historian greeting that argument with anything but derision. The funny thing is that English class is one of the few places where students actually grapple with the question of how to read primary sources. It’s better preparation for being a historian than 90% of what most people learn in high school history classes.)

    She’s a foolish, mean-spirited person, and I’m not sure she deserves attention. The fact that she’s a tenured law professor, though, does go pretty far to explain why law students are such emotional wrecks!

  41. ellenbrenna
    ellenbrenna June 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm |

    Obviously the law is for pussies, if the women had any sense of honor they would challenge those blaggards at Auto Admit to a duel.

    Matchlock pistols at dawn!! I demand satisfaction!

  42. Dan S.
    Dan S. June 14, 2007 at 1:50 pm |

    actually Althouse herself is a parody of this fine, fair and balanced…um, person.

    Oh . . . my.

    Get out.

    Actually, I should – it’s quite a nice day. But before I go, let me grab the relevant links . . . um, here and here.

  43. Thomas
    Thomas June 14, 2007 at 2:09 pm |

    Ellen, a bunch of entitled little shits who post on a board that will protect their identities even when they threaten to rape women would never chance actual accountability. If one of the Does actually challenged them to pistols at fifty paces, they would shit themselves, then call the police.

  44. rmt
    rmt June 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm |

    My god, Jill. I’m so sorry.

    Ann Althouse should be ashamed of herself for defending those wastes of flesh.

  45. mythago
    mythago June 14, 2007 at 3:19 pm |

    Obviously the law is for pussies, if the women had any sense of honor they would challenge those blaggards at Auto Admit to a duel.

    That’s why Althouse is a tenured professor of combat theory. She certainly wouldn’t want to be a professor of law, since resorting to the law is something only weaklings and cowards do.

  46. raging red
    raging red June 14, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    Ann says:

    Isn’t “the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe” exactly what we always used to say people had to put up with in a free country?

    Define “put up with.” If by “put up with” she means: have no recourse when that sexually offensive tripe:

    1. infringes your copyright
    2. defames you
    3. is intended to cause you emotional distress
    4. and other stuff like that

    then no, dear law professor, that’s not what “we” say people have to put up with in a free country. That’s why those causes of action exist. If she wants to argue that she doesn’t think these women will succeed in proving their claims, that’s one thing, but to pretend that they’re trying to curtail anyone’s free speech rights is disingenuous (or stupid, take your pick) to the extreme.

    And why does she keep saying that the issue is whether or not any “true threats” were made? That’s irrelevant, legally speaking. None of their causes of action have anything to do with whether or not the defendants made any “true threats.”

  47. Lina
    Lina June 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm |

    Fuck, I am truly horrified at the comments you get. The ‘boys will be boys’ defense is as fucking disgusting as ‘the slut deserved it’ defense. This ‘hate fuck’ thing, I’ve never heard that before.
    I’m truly shocked that anyone would defend this abuse.

  48. labyrus
    labyrus June 14, 2007 at 3:43 pm |

    You know, I am consistently amazed that Ann Althouse somehow managed to earn a law degree.

  49. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 3:58 pm |

    “Ann Althouse is a freezedried bag of delusional narcissism, who seems to really hate young women and thinks that threats to rape are actually compliments.”

    Now explain to me why you shouldn’t be sued for libel and defamation after making that comment.

  50. Hector B.
    Hector B. June 14, 2007 at 4:33 pm |

    Although directed towards the middle school set, the SF Chronicle had a good article on combating cyber bullying, a few months ago.
    These two rules seem like particularly good advice:
    “How to handle cyberbullying
    “– If they don’t get a rise out of you, they’ll probably stop. So ignore it and especially don’t retaliate.

    “– Contact the police if someone threatens you. ”

  51. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    That’s exactly my point Jill, a number of the statements listed in the complaint were merely expressions of opinion and sexual desire. Certainly there were threats and libel, but rather innocuous statements were dumped in there too. I’d be more sympathetic to the plaintiffs if they were more selective in the comments they included. It seems like this is an attempt to chill any sexually explicit chatter about females on the internet.

  52. SEK
    SEK June 14, 2007 at 4:53 pm |

    Althouse has a problem with interpretation. Funny thing is, after she hit-and-ran, I checked my site stats for that day. Someone in Madison, WI kept reloading my site every ten minutes or so. (Everybody wave to Ann! Hi Ann!)

    All of which I only point out because Jill clearly misses the metaphorical intent of the AutoAdmit crowd. “Rape” is like “ravish” used to be, back when Shelley and Keats wrote. If Jill could read with the interpretive generosity as Ann, she’d know what this meant:

    i hope someone uses my pink, fleshy-textured cylindrical body to violate her

    This is all about Christian charity, the giving of one’s self to another, so that he may infuse God’s love in Jill. She may not know she wants it, but she does. She’s asking for it. Ann knows that, because she’s a real feminist. Not some breasted whore like Jill.

  53. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 14, 2007 at 4:53 pm | *

    It seems like this is an attempt to chill any sexually explicit chatter about females on the internet.

    Hans, i just thought you should know that were we in a bar, I would have thrown my drink in your face for that.

    This is not about sexually explicit chatter or its silencing. It’s about prolonged, libelous chatter aimed at specific people with the intent of causing them harm.

    Kindly take your privilege and shove it.

  54. Auguste
    Auguste June 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm |

    I’d be more sympathetic to the plaintiffs if they were more selective in the comments they included.

    I’d be more sympathetic to the defendants if people didn’t keep saying “See! Some of the comments were simply sexually violent fantasies meant to create and maintain a culture of fear! Why can’t you leave them alone, already!”

  55. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    Ann has figured out that the “I’m the only woman you sexist pigs can trust” is a very, very well-paying schtick.

  56. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm |

    Then explain to me why these statements are in the complaint:

    “I would very much like to enjoy consensual sexual contact with that young woman after a requisite period of courtship of course, and it necessary, wait till our union has been blessed by an appropriate clergyman. But once on our honeymoon, I would very much hope that she would grant me the boon of anal intercourse to the point of repeatedly climaxing inside.”

    “I can assure you she doesn’t dress conservatively. Anyone who goes to the gym in the afternoon has seen her trapsing around in spandex booty shorts and a strappy tank top. She wants people to look, and they do.”

    “I would pour syrup on that.”

    “The assumption in the media that [Doe I’s] rejections were based on a post on some website that no lawyer takes seriously is laughable.”

  57. DWF
    DWF June 14, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    Jeebus H, Ann is STILL going on about commentors who were OBVIOUSLY not her and OBVIOUSLY joking “using her name”??? I’m sure Gerald Ford demanded the same of Chevy Chase.

  58. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm |

    “Hans, they’re in it to establish that this is a pattern of ongoing, sexualized harassment.”

    So do you think that sexually explicit statements should be actionable because they add up to harrassment? I can be liable because I said something constitutionally protected after someone else made a threat?

    And that still doesn’t explain the last one.

  59. sunflwrmoonbeam
    sunflwrmoonbeam June 14, 2007 at 5:24 pm |

    For the record, I spent sometime today in a comment-debate-war with Ann Althouse in an attempt (wasted) to point out her misogyny. She said, amongst other things, that what I said was “sick and twisted” (I said she’s supporting a rape culture and promoting tacit acceptance of violence against women) and ordered me to apologize several times. When I challenged her as to why she was siding with AA and not their female targets, she deleted all my comments, all her comments to me, and all the comments of a certain Dan who was equally criticizing her.

    I’m just amused that she can’t handle any criticism whatsoever. Moreover, at one point in our discussions she equated my calling her a misogynist with what happened on AA.

    so yeah, she’s a twit and a coward and so entertaining.

  60. Sabrina Star
    Sabrina Star June 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm |

    Hans,

    Try to put yourself in the position of a woman who is being viciously harassed or even threatened on an internet board, who’s personal information and pictures are being posted, knowing that they live in a culture where every day women are raped, kidnapped, and/or murdered. Can you see how any reasonable person in that situation might find even the “toned down” comments in that context to be menacing?

  61. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub June 14, 2007 at 5:30 pm |

    Hans, you sniveling fuckwit moron, these inbred wankers were talking about hate fucking these women, posting invitations to gang-bangs and giving the women’s names and contact info, sodomizing these women (in the context of hate fucking, you idiot) and posting lies that these women had STD’s, were having affairs with school administrators, and providing sex for people. Among other lies.

    If you want to be spoonfed further, go ask your mommy to prechew your food. Kthnxbye.

  62. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm |

    Jill, you seem to be backtracking. Earlier, you said:

    “no one is being sued for offending someone else’s sensibilities. The AutoAdmit guys are being sued for libel and for the harm that their false statements and threats caused.”

    Some of the statements included in the complaint are simply men saying that they wanted to have sex with the women, or in one case, speculating about why she didn’t get a job. How are they actionable other than that they offended someone’s sensibilites?

    “Hans, you sniveling fuckwit moron, these inbred wankers were talking about hate fucking these women, posting invitations to gang-bangs and giving the women’s names and contact info, sodomizing these women (in the context of hate fucking, you idiot) and posting lies that these women had STD’s, were having affairs with school administrators, and providing sex for people.”

    If you’d read what I actually said, I didn’t suggest that those statements weren’t actionable. I said it was wrong to dump innocuous expression of opinion in with the actual threats in order to imply guilt by association.

  63. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub June 14, 2007 at 5:49 pm |

    Right, Hans. I’m sure you’re not trying to derail the thread or build strawmen at all. I’ve never seen that from the AA sympathizers.

  64. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    “If there was a separate action for each statement by itself, you might have a point. But there is one action for a collection of statements, and so your argument that a few of the individual comments are simply offensive and not threatening/libelous isn’t really relevant.”

    That’s exactly my point though. They have named as defendants the posters that made those unthreatening statements, and wrapped it all up into the same cause of action. That strikes me as trying to chill the collective speech of group of people with strikingly different levels of potential liability.

  65. Hans Moleman
    Hans Moleman June 14, 2007 at 5:58 pm |

    Fair enough. Again, I’m not saying they don’t have a claim, just that I would have like to have seen it phrased in a different manner.

  66. JackGoff
    JackGoff June 14, 2007 at 6:43 pm |

    I’m sure you’re not trying to derail the thread or build strawmen at all. I’ve never seen that from the AA sympathizers.

    Forget AA, he’s done it numerous times over at Pandagon. He’s definitely trying to make this about Jill’s language as opposed to the AA jackasses, because that’s what he does.

  67. rasty
    rasty June 14, 2007 at 8:10 pm |

    In my opinion, if a man expresses a desire to rape or an acceptance of rape, then he is threatening all women he then comes into contact with. My mother recently fired a man for listing “raping a woman” on his wish list of things to do before he died, whilst he was at work. It was on the basis that he had threatened every woman in the office with his words. Do we have to get to the stage of stating “I am threatening you with…” to consider a person to be making a threat? Or is the issue that words on the web do not count?
    Why the fuck would anyone laugh off the idea that they may soon be raped? There is nothing to laugh about here. If I was threatened in this way, my life would be destroyed until I knew I was safe from these people.
    I praise all those of you who deplore the rising misogyny on the net.

  68. Elise
    Elise June 15, 2007 at 1:29 am |

    Hans, they’re in it to establish that this is a pattern of ongoing, sexualized harassment. Libel isn’t exactly my specialty, but many areas of the law do recognize that actions/statements which individually may not be actionable can add up to a claim when taken in the aggregate. I would guess that that’s why those statements are in there — because, when put in context with the many other comments, they add up to systematic harassment and libel.

    Spot on. What’s important in a case like this is not individual statements taken out of context (context is essential for all of the claims raised in the case), but an overall pattern of conduct. The remarks Hans quotes may arguably not seem like much when taken out of the context in which they were uttered (which is probably why they were taken out of context), but in a context of repeated, graphic expressions of desire or intent to commit rape (amongst other things), the range of reasonable interpretations changes.

    Plus, sometimes it’s not a bad idea to get out in front of the apparently innocuous things that a defendant might seize on so that they can’t be raised as effectively as a defence. Of course, when drafting a complaint, you have to be careful about alleging too much, since you could end up shouldering more of a burden of proof than you really had do, but in a case like this that wouldn’t seem to be a major concern.

  69. Elise
    Elise June 15, 2007 at 1:48 am |

    Addendum:

    Here’s a bit of context that might have been useful in evaluating the “consensual sexual intercourse” statement quoted by Hans, namely the subject heading, which is reproduced in full in the complaint: “Running those statements through the derapifier”.

  70. Seth Gordon
    Seth Gordon June 15, 2007 at 9:41 am |

    Matchlock pistols at dawn!! I demand satisfaction!

    Traditionally, the party being challenged to a duel, not the challenger, gets to choose the location and the weapons. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect every female law student to master pistol shooting and fencing.

  71. israel
    israel June 15, 2007 at 10:05 am |

    Great, great post. Well done.

  72. mythago
    mythago June 15, 2007 at 1:10 pm |

    That strikes me as trying to chill the collective speech of group of people with strikingly different levels of potential liability.

    Oh, please. What it strikes me as, is your refusing to acknowledge that a forest exists because you can point to all the individual trees as discrete entities.

  73. Toonces
    Toonces June 15, 2007 at 1:16 pm |

    Hey Hans, if Ann wants to sue me for libel she is more than welcome to trot on up to Canada and do so. Since your lips are so firmly planted to her ass, I assume you’ll be coming with her.

  74. kidlacan
    kidlacan June 15, 2007 at 2:03 pm |

    you know. this has me wondering. exactly why is it okay to engage in “sexually explicit chatter on the internet” in the first place? i know, i know, OMGFIRSTAMENDMENT!!!1!, but really. why in the hell are threats to rape and idle discussions of named persons’ sexual habits and/or diseases so fucking sacrosanct?

  75. ellenbrenna
    ellenbrenna June 15, 2007 at 2:57 pm |

    Seth, as a feminist I will not hear of any preconcieved limits on women’s dueling abilities and believe they should be thoroughly instructed in both fencing and shooting. Also in the piano forte, poetry recitation, flower arranging and the strategic placement of explosives on the enemy’s bridges and fortifications.

    Hans you seem to be confused: the statements here about Ann Althouse are interpretations of her own words and actions, the statements anonymously made on AutoAdmit about specific women were, according to those women, lies. Hence the suing.

  76. belledame222
    belledame222 June 15, 2007 at 6:40 pm |

    Hey, Hans. Wat R U waring? U sound HOTT.

  77. mythago
    mythago June 15, 2007 at 10:44 pm |

    i know, i know, OMGFIRSTAMENDMENT!!!1!

    People who have actually read the First Amendment are often astonished to learn that it pertains to the control of speech by THE GOVERNMENT; it does not actually grant an unlimited right to say whatever the fuck you want with no tagbacks.

    I guess Ciolli didn’t make it to Con Law the week they went over that.

  78. Hector B.
    Hector B. June 15, 2007 at 11:39 pm |

    People who have actually read the First Amendment are often astonished to learn that it pertains to the control of speech by THE GOVERNMENT; it does not actually grant an unlimited right to say whatever the fuck you want with no tagbacks.

    I’ve heard this a couple of times, but one thing puzzles me. Could one of you lawyers explain why people call the case of Jerry Falwell suing Hustler magazine, for printing a cartoon depicting him sodomizing his mother in an outhouse, a First Amendment case? I don’t understand how the government was involved there. Hustler won, as I recall.

  79. Scipio Africanus
    Scipio Africanus June 16, 2007 at 1:25 am |

    New York Times v. Sullivan
    376 U.S. 254 (1964)

    Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

    Issue

    Did Alabama’s libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?

    Conclusion

    The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan’s case collapsed.

    In short, mythago is incorrect, as court adjudication of civil claims arising from speech is government action under the First Amendment.

  80. Scipio Africanus
    Scipio Africanus June 16, 2007 at 1:32 am |

    Not really acquainted with many of the facts and circumstances, Jill’s public figure status will be the issue that could get interesting – I’m not certain how a blogger would fall within the full purpose/limited purpose public figure test, and whether it would depend upon the volume/circulation of the blog.

  81. A. Nonmouse
    A. Nonmouse June 16, 2007 at 7:54 am |

    This case has so many holes in it! How is she going to prove that all 16 law firms turned her down because of AutoWhatEverTheHellItsCalled? Yeah, I know, civil case, preponderance, blahblahblah, but still, ain’t no way a judge (who is also a lawyer) is going to put the hiring practices of his industry on the stand. Also, Ciolli was an owner of the site and thus exempt from such suits (unless he actually participated in the namecalling). Finally, the site owner doesn’t even log IP addresses, so how are they ever going to track down and positively (!) identify the boys and girls behind the masks? DNA?

    Plus, the women filed anonymously? Their names and their association with the website was already splattered across the web before the complaint was filed. I only heard of this case four hours ago, and I had enough keywords from the first two pages of the complaint to not only get the women’s names, but all their past legal run-ins with that website and a couple branch sites, as well as the actual message threads on AutoAdmit that they are suing about! And guess what?! Those threads are still open for comments!

    Good thing their lawyer is handling this pro bono (iow, to get his name in print cuz he knows this will eventually be at least a minor Duke-type media event), the retainer on this would be astronomical.

  82. John Protevi
    John Protevi June 16, 2007 at 10:06 am |

    Scipio, it might help your credibility if you were to realize that Jill is not a plaintiff in this case.

  83. Scipio Africanus
    Scipio Africanus June 16, 2007 at 10:24 am |

    Scipio, it might help your credibility if you were to realize that Jill is not a plaintiff in this case.

    I don’t know what credibility has to do with anything – I was first responding to the incorrect statement that the First Amendment bears no weight in a libel action.

    Admittedly – like I said – I am not appraised of the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand. So what is your point?

  84. John Protevi
    John Protevi June 16, 2007 at 10:56 am |

    Well, when you get up to speed on the case — not just that Jill is not a plaintiff, but that none of the plaintiffs are public figures — you might be able to see what the point is.

  85. mythago
    mythago June 16, 2007 at 3:05 pm |

    In short, mythago is incorrect, as court adjudication of civil claims arising from speech is government action under the First Amendment.

    Are you really saying that it’s *incorrect* that the First Amendment does not grant you the unlimited right to say whatever the fuck you want with no tagbacks?

    Admittedly – like I said – I am not appraised of the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand.

    Then why are you spouting off as if you were? There’s nothing to suggest any of the plaintiffs were “public figures”. For that matter, there’s not much to suggest that Jill is a “public figure”. (Or that if she were a “public figure in the blogosphere”, that rape threats and sexual slurs are in any way related to her narrow role as a public figure.)

    Yeah, I know, civil case, preponderance, blahblahblah, but still, ain’t no way a judge (who is also a lawyer) is going to put the hiring practices of his industry on the stand.

    And you know this because your magical wishful thinking tells you so?

  86. belledame222
    belledame222 June 16, 2007 at 6:31 pm |

    Chutzpah, the all-purpose ass-cover.

  87. Satan luvvs Repugs
    Satan luvvs Repugs June 16, 2007 at 11:14 pm |

    This suit is not frivolous or fun — it’s a last resort.

    Not quite, it’s a next to last resort.

    The last resort involves the use of powerful firearms and explosives. And perhaps a Black & Decker 19V cordless variable speed drill with a 1″ spade bit. As enjoyable as all this might be (to inflict on the miscreants, that is), one hopes that the “next to” last resort is effective in dealing with them.

  88. cfw
    cfw June 17, 2007 at 12:52 am |

    U Wis. should ask AA to turn in her key and hit the road!

    At the least, AA needs to read what she plans to write about and learn to get out of her self-centered approach to life.

    The quoted comments about individual women are just the sort of stuff productive lawsuits are meant to address (and deter).

    If it were male victims, no one would express much surprise if the quotes resulted in a suit or something worse.

    May AC have his buns toasted for a few years.

  89. Kevin Hayden
    Kevin Hayden June 17, 2007 at 10:40 am |

    I have it on good authority that Althouse has serious competence fantasies and likes to take long walks on moonlit beaches with her secret lover, Ann Althouse.

  90. Nullifidian
    Nullifidian June 17, 2007 at 12:34 pm |

    Seth, as a feminist I will not hear of any preconcieved limits on women’s dueling abilities and believe they should be thoroughly instructed in both fencing and shooting. Also in the piano forte, poetry recitation, flower arranging and the strategic placement of explosives on the enemy’s bridges and fortifications.

    *golf clap*

    I’m cheering the well-deserved takedown of Althouse, but this is the comment that made me snort ginger ale through my nose.

  91. Terry Karney
    Terry Karney June 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm |

    Seth: re the terms of duels.

    Actually, the terms ( conditions, weapons, point at which satisfaction was considered reached; and so no question about finish, etc.) were negotiated by the seconds. Prior to the privatisation of duels, they were mandated by law (though judicial duels were rare, and pretty much died out in the 13th century).

    The terms started pretty loosely, often with everyone who was there getting into a huge street-brawl.

    As time went on, and swordplay became less everyday, pistols became something of a default, and a demand for swords might be seen as an attempt to take advantage of the other party, and so be; quite strenously resisted.

    Reasons for choosing one over the other (in France, where duelling persisted the longest, as a socially accpeted behaviour) ended up, in later days, as a means of separating the mere social offense, from mortal insult; because the norms moved to first blood with swords.

    That, greatly, reduced the number of fatal injuries (Germany’s “korpsbruderen” were a different thing altogether, as they were social clubs for a stylised blood-sport, more like boxing than duelling, for all that they are called, “Duelling clubs” in English, but I digress), and so things which really were offensive enough to be willing to risk one’s own death over, were moved to pistol.

    And a second could have lots of influence in preventing an actual fight.

    de Maupassant was a fiendishly good shot. A friend of his was challenged to a duel. He wasn’t a very good shot. de Maupassant was the second, and arrange to meet the other fellow’s second, at the de Maupassant’s principle’s apartment. He arrived early, strewed a couple of his own practice targets about the table, and left.

    When the other second arrived, and de Maupassant came to let him in, he saw the targets, assumed they were the principle’s, and told his guy to apologise.

  92. Terry Karney
    Terry Karney June 17, 2007 at 2:31 pm |

    Scipio: If you don’t know the facts of the case, how in the name of reason can you then aver to know the merits of it?

    How, absent a knowledge of th e facts (easily found in the complaint) can you cavalierly 1: dismiss it out of hand as frivolous (ignoring that the question in Falwell v Flynt was one which related to a public figure who had taken stands on political issues; and so was injecting himself into the arena in which his protections from ridicule, and where the standards of what is libelous are changed) and 2: assert that all judges are going to engage in a venal refusal to look at the merits of the case because it touches on some of the ugly aspects of the old boy practices of the legal profession?

    Damn, but that’s some view of the world you’ve got, a combination of privilege (wherein you can be right from a position of declared, and even wilful, ignorance) and an opinion of lawyers which is at least as low as those who take Shakespeare out of context.

  93. A. Nonmouse
    A. Nonmouse June 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm |

    And you know this because your magical wishful thinking tells you so?

    No, common sense. Another thing, if [redacted – ed.] and [redacted – ed.] so feared for their safety, why didn’t they press for criminal charges of terroristic threats?

  94. mythago
    mythago June 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm |

    No, common sense.

    What part of “common sense” leads you to believe that no judge would ever allow evidence of law firms’ hiring practices to be introduced as evidence?

  95. Autumn Harvest
    Autumn Harvest June 17, 2007 at 6:34 pm |

    . . .one thing puzzles me. Could one of you lawyers explain why people call the case of Jerry Falwell suing Hustler magazine, for printing a cartoon depicting him sodomizing his mother in an outhouse, a First Amendment case? I don’t understand how the government was involved there. Hustler won, as I recall.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I believe this is because lawsuits involving libel and slander do still involve the government, and thus the First Amendment, because in such suits this winner collects money from the loser through the action of the government. Such suits could be used to stifle speech if, for example, Bush were allowed to sue me for saying that he was running an illegal wiretapping program. So libel and slander still involve First Amendment issues, most strongly when the person allegedly libeled is a “public figure,” such as Bush or Falwell.

    As mythago says, this does not mean you can say whatever you want. I’m pretty safe saying that Bush is running an illegal wiretapping program (whether or not he actually is at this point), but not saying that Hector B. is running an illegal meth lab, since (I assume) you are not a public figure. Nor would it be a good idea to send an e-mail to the White House stating that you plan to rape President Bush, and then claim that you’re just exercising your First Amendment rights.

  96. A. Nonmouse
    A. Nonmouse June 18, 2007 at 9:17 pm |

    “A. Nonmouse, please don’t use the real names of people who wish to remain anonymous.”

    Somewhat ironic given the defendants “named” in the lawsuit, eh? Besides, the plaintiff’s veil of anonymity is made of gossamer, ragged at that, given that their names were already directly associated with Autoadmit before the suit was filed, including in the Discussion page on the Autoadmit’s entry on Wikipedia.

Comments are closed.

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