Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 09, 08:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Interesting Doe Case Internet Harassment

Legal Ethics
Yale Students Unmask Anonymous Critics; Legal Careers at Risk

Posted Jul 31, 2008, 03:50 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Apparent law students who posted nasty comments about female classmates
on the Internet thought they were doing so anonymously.

But now two female Yale Law School students who sued over the AutoAdmit
posts have identified at least some of those who made the vile comments,
including posts that said women should be sexually assaulted, reports
Wired. "All now face the likely publication of their names in court
records—potentially marking a death sentence for the comment trolls'
budding legal careers even before the case has gone to trial."

The case has sparked considerable debate over what the limits of free
speech on the Internet should be, Wired notes in a lengthy article on
the subject.

As discussed in an earlier ABAJournal.com post, female law students
contend that they have been harassed and perhaps rejected for jobs over
such anonymous comments. Meanwhile, at least one male law student who
was originally named as a defendant in the Yale students' suit because
of his work for AutoAdmit, Anthony Ciolli, reportedly lost a job because
of his association with the website, even though he apparently may not
have posted objectionable comments. He has since been dropped from the
suit, according to Wired.

Filed last year in federal court in New Haven, Conn., against about 40
anonymous commenters, using their screen names, the suit seeks
compensatory and punitive damages for defamation, copyright infringement
(photos of one woman allegedly were posted without permission) and
invasion of privacy, the Connecticut Law Tribune reported in March. It
says one of the two unnamed female plaintiffs was so stressed by the
Internet attack that she eventually took a leave of absence from law school.

A copy of an amended complaint (PDF) in the case is provided by Justia.

Related coverage:

Washington Post (2007): "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web"

ABAJournal.com: "Law Firms Waking Up to PR Issues Posed by Law Gossip Blogs"

ABAJournal.com: "Prosecutor Explains Possible Case Against JuicyCampus"

ABA Journal: "Taming the Gossipmongers"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/yale_...e rs_at_risk/
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 09, 09:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Interesting Doe Case Internet Harassment

On Oct 23, 3:06*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
Legal Ethics
Yale Students Unmask Anonymous Critics; Legal Careers at Risk

Posted Jul 31, 2008, 03:50 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Apparent law students who posted nasty comments about female classmates
on the Internet thought they were doing so anonymously.

But now two female Yale Law School students who sued over the AutoAdmit
posts have identified at least some of those who made the vile comments,
including posts that said women should be sexually assaulted, reports
Wired. "All now face the likely publication of their names in court
records—potentially marking a death sentence for the comment trolls'
budding legal careers even before the case has gone to trial."

The case has sparked considerable debate over what the limits of free
speech on the Internet should be, Wired notes in a lengthy article on
the subject.

As discussed in an earlier ABAJournal.com post, female law students
contend that they have been harassed and perhaps rejected for jobs over
such anonymous comments. Meanwhile, at least one male law student who
was originally named as a defendant in the Yale students' suit because
of his work for AutoAdmit, Anthony Ciolli, reportedly lost a job because
of his association with the website, even though he apparently may not
have posted objectionable comments. He has since been dropped from the
suit, according to Wired.

Filed last year in federal court in New Haven, Conn., against about 40
anonymous commenters, using their screen names, the suit seeks
compensatory and punitive damages for defamation, copyright infringement
(photos of one woman allegedly were posted without permission) and
invasion of privacy, the Connecticut Law Tribune reported in March. It
says one of the two unnamed female plaintiffs was so stressed by the
Internet attack that she eventually took a leave of absence from law school.

A copy of an amended complaint (PDF) in the case is provided by Justia.

Related coverage:

Washington Post (2007): "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web"

ABAJournal.com: "Law Firms Waking Up to PR Issues Posed by Law Gossip Blogs"

ABAJournal.com: "Prosecutor Explains Possible Case Against JuicyCampus"

ABA Journal: "Taming the Gossipmongers"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/yale_...nymous_critics...


What's fascinting is how they tracked down the anonymous posters.

I'm not going to say how they did it, but those who use remailers
aren't as cloaked as they think.
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 09, 10:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 112
Default Interesting Doe Case Internet Harassment

On Oct 23, 4:32*pm, RayGordon wrote:

What's fascinting is how they tracked down the anonymous posters.


It's not "fascinting," Super Secretary. Not even *fascinating.*

I'm not going to say how they did it, but those who use remailers
aren't as cloaked as they think.


You're not going to say because you don't know; hence, the reason one
of your numerous exercises in frivolous barratry was tossed out of
court.

Oh, that's right: They've ALL been thrown out. I should've
specified. My bad.

That one lawsuit you lost -- I know, hard to keep track of all of them
-- because you failed to properly serve the defendents because you
couldn't locate the ones who were using a remailer.

I bet you can't WAIT for them to reveal their secret in the hopes that
someone will show you how to do it. Then just the getting enough
scratch together to actually travel to the proper jurisdiction to file
your frivolities will be in your way.

Progress, Gordo! Progress! Here's to hoping.....
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 09, 10:43 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 41
Default Interesting Doe Case Internet Harassment

In article f7c52a14-c1d6-47cf-9fff-

RayGordon wrote:


What's fascinting is how they tracked down the anonymous posters.

I'm not going to say how they did it, but those who use remailers
aren't as cloaked as they think.


Get over yourself.

  #5   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 09, 11:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Default Interesting Doe Case Internet Harassment

major snippage

What's fascinting is how they tracked down the anonymous posters.


I'm not going to say how they did it,


Probably because you don't know....you have only been trying to do what they
did since 1996


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Creighton Case: Petition in Opposition to Accounting filed by Creighton Sloan Ray Gordon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 5th 06 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017