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

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

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

Also, Ann Althouse is an idiot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find this whole thing very disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genny--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivy, your comment is a total non sequitur.

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

This is ridiculous and illogical.

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

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

Last addendum, I swear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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