

When anonymous attackers went after two Yale law students, they struck back - linhir
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying?print=true

======
prospero
I seriously question the judgment of anyone who uses anonymous, hyperbolic
statements on the internet as criteria in any decision they make, let alone
for a job application.

Historically information in publicly broadcast mediums has been trustworthy,
but that's simply not true anymore. We need, as a society, to realize that the
signal to noise ratio has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and that
this trend will only continue.

That being said, it's astonishingly stupid to spend your free time making fun
of the most litigious group of people on the face of the planet. The members
of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get.

~~~
russell
The legal profession, medicine, and a host of others depend on personal
reputation. I can see an employer, recognizing that it is all baseless,
passing because he doesn't want to explain to clients or colleagues that it is
all baseless, particularly when there are plenty of other candidates. Suppose
you or your SO were Googling a potential pediatrician and got pages of
molestation accusations?

~~~
prospero
Are these molestation charges backed by the names of real families, or are
they anonymous? There's a world of difference between the two. There's also a
clear distinction calling someone a child molester and calling someone
"cheerful and big-titted".

If a person isn't willing to put their name behind a statement, then we
shouldn't lend it any credence. As lurid as the statements were, I don't think
its any different from what went on behind closed doors fifty years ago.
Barring wishful thinking, people didn't really believe third-hand rumors, so
why should it be any different now?

I wonder, though, if this story would even be a blip on the radar if the two
girls' names were replaced by some pop star. Maybe it's just that the bar for
celebrity has been lowered to the point that all it takes is to be an
attractive girl at a prestigious law school.

~~~
spc476
How anonymous are you talking? Libelous remarks from someone calling
themselves DeathFscker are bad, but can probably be isgnored. But what about
the same libelous remarks coming from Wyatt Rupert Byrd, a name I just
randomly generated? Those might be taken more seriously if found in the
context of a Google search.

------
russell
It's a very long, very good read about what happens when defamation and
character attacks get out of hand at a site. The owners did nothing to tone
things down or to remove offending posts. It's interesting to note that the
victims went after the perps and may have detroyed the perps careers.

I think we need a thoughtful discussion on how to deal with this or congress
will do it for us.

~~~
hexis
I understand what you mean, but I think we need much more than a thoughtful
discussion. Congress is in a legislatin' mood and I don't think they're
interested in arguments for self-regulation.

------
tokenadult
This article is a good explanation of why it is wise to moderate online
discussions. "One was finding out the firm where Ciolli would be working upon
graduation and pressuring it to withdraw its offer. It turned out to be the
Boston law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, which in April rescinded
its offer. The message board violated 'principles of collegiality and respect
that members of the legal profession should observe in their dealings with
other lawyers,' the firm’s managing partner, Charles DeWitt, wrote Ciolli."

~~~
mickt
That's a good point, and maybe without moderation users can act like a mob
doing and saying things they normally wouldn't do.

~~~
jacquesm
The simple fact that they are anonymous is what gives them license to do this,
if they were id'd then they'd never do any of this. Anonymity brings out the
coward in people, and nowhere more so than online.

------
mickt
This is something that can apply to us techies and just about anyone these
days. Imagine a potential employer or an investor Google's your name and all
they find is crap calling your character, or judgment, or skills into
question. Bang goes the job or the funding ...

Heck, I don't even want people I don't know to find my Facebook or Twitter
page; all it can takes is someone to post a potentially inappropriate photo,
or an inappropriately tagged photo of you for your reputation to be destroyed
in some circles. Which is why I keep a professional identity on LinkedIn, and
obfuscate my other personal online identities (friend's can find me pretty
easily).

~~~
time_management
I think Google needs to start treating searches on people as a special use
case where user-generated websites like Autoadmit get low marks.

It used to be that "public figures" could be scrutinized harshly, in print
media, while private citizens had a certain degree of protection. It would be
considered harassment for the paper to write an op-ed about John Q. Doe, store
manager at the local Drug-Fix, being bad at his job.

Now, it's worse to be a private citizen, because it's much easier to destroy a
private person's "Google resume". I could talk shit about a prominent
politician for days and wouldn't have much of an effect on his Google
presence, but if I (or anyone) decided to go into "digital hit man" mode on
Joe Q. Bloggs, it wouldn't take more than half an hour. Because there's so
little content about him, it would be easy to make over 90% of web content
about him be negative.

------
Locke
I'm not convinced there was anything illegal about the threatening / abusive
postings. I think we need to be careful about protecting our freedom of
speech.

However, I'm very happy that those individuals who were identified have faced
_social_ repercussions for their behavior. I would not want anything to do
with any of those posters. If I were hiring, I wouldn't hire any of them. I
would probably boycott any businesses that work with them. If they're free to
be jerks, I'm free take my business elsewhere.

Therein lies the more interesting issue. Anonymity. It's hard to exert social
pressure on bad behavior if you can't identify the people involved. Do we have
a right to be anonymous online? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

I really don't know...

~~~
aston
I think the defendants of this case deserve a lot more sympathy than they're
getting. The types of remarks you make when you're an anonymous dude on a
message board of only marginal repute are not the same types of remarks you
make when your name and identity are known.

There's an argument for removing the ability to be anonymous, but I think it's
pretty much superior to allow people to hide their identity, but take their
statements with all of the doubt that you would an anonymous, gossipy rumor.
Trolls will be trolls, and the best thing to do is ignore them, not try to out
them and ruin their professional lives.

~~~
time_management
I would remark that the punishment of the defendants has been uneven and had
more to do with whose identities were recoverable than who did anything wrong.
About half the defendants were people who made one off-hand comment (e.g. "Get
in line") and are now suffering extremely disproportionate consequences.
Ciolli (Great Teacher Onizuka) didn't even take part in this behavior at all--
he was an outed lawyer-- and he lost his job over this. This smacks of
opportunistic target-seeking.

On the other hand, posters like Pauliewalnuts, lonelyvirgin, and :D bordered
on being sociopathic and I feel like those guys are getting what was coming to
them. I also think there's an enormous difference between, for example,
expressing desire to have sex with someone (locker-room banter) and making
jokes about becoming forceful with that person, which most women would take as
a threat.

------
smanek
Some of the comments were over the line (calling for physical attacks, etc),
but most of the people being sued didn't actually say anything illegal (being
'mean' isn't illegal in the US). Jokes, opinions, and fantasy (no matter how
lewd) shouldn't be illegal.

The article only acknowledges this at the very end: _"But many other posts,
however cruel, might not be seen as extreme or outrageous enough to lose their
First Amendment protection. As for defamation, the overwhelming majority of
the comments could be construed as opinions, which are protected."_

These women are going way overboard, and abusing the court system (and the
fact that they have sufficient resources to legally harass posters) to get
what they want. Frankly, because of their litigious behavior, I don't think I
would ever hire either of them.

~~~
blurry
Actually, I thought the article pretty clearly stated the opposite of your
last point.

One, the women were far from litigious (depends on your definition of course
but to me taking a year and using everything from humor to begging in an
attempt to resolve the case without going to litigation is the opposite of
litigious).

Two, they did _not_ have the resources to sue the posters - unless I
misunderstood the article, Google's legal firm is representing them for free
because Google wants to have control over any legal precedents that affect
their ability to index non-moderated online forums.

~~~
joeyo
That last part about the law firm representing them for free because it would
allow Google to have some control over precedent seems, if true, very
ethically questionable to me. Lawyer have a responsibility of undivided
loyalty to their clients. Just because the work is being done _pro bono_ does
not nullify that responsibility.

------
time_management
180

------
colins_pride
Somehow this vaguely reminds me of patent trolls

