« Courts - Kansas high court hears case of judicial questionnaires | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: Commission on Courts discussion of judicial mandates »

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Law - "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web": Students at Yale Law and Indiana University Feel Effects of Anonymous Attacks

First, the Yale Law back-story: In a lengthy March 7, 2007 front-page Washington Post article, Ellen Nakashima reported:

She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, has published in top legal journals and completed internships at leading institutions in her field. So when the Yale law student interviewed with 16 firms for a job this summer, she was concerned that she had only four call-backs. She was stunned when she had zero offers.

Though it is difficult to prove a direct link, the woman thinks she is a victim of a new form of reputation-maligning: online postings with offensive content and personal attacks that can be stored forever and are easily accessible through a Google search.

The woman and two others interviewed by The Washington Post learned from friends that they were the subject of derogatory chats on a widely read message board on AutoAdmit, run by a third-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania [Anthony Ciolli] and a 23-year-old insurance agent. The women spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution online.

The law-school board, one of several message boards on AutoAdmit, bills itself as "the most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world." It contains many useful insights on schools and firms. But there are also hundreds of chats posted by anonymous users that feature derisive statements about women, gays, blacks, Asians and Jews. In scores of messages, the users disparage individuals by name or other personally identifying information. Some of the messages included false claims about sexual activity and diseases. To the targets' dismay, the comments bubble up through the Internet into the public domain via Google's powerful search engine. * * *

Employers, including law firms, frequently do Google searches as part of due diligence checks on prospective employees. According to a December survey by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research organization, roughly half of U.S. hiring officials use the Internet in vetting job applications. About one-third of the searches yielded content used to deny a job, the survey said. The legal hiring market is very competitive. What could tip the balance is the appearance that a candidate is a lightning rod for controversy, said Mark Rasch, a Washington lawyer and consultant who specializes in Internet issues. * * *

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

In a telephone interview, Clinton said the university's position has not changed. "We believe we don't have grounds under the university's code of conduct to proceed," he said.

According to this entry in Wikipedia:
On June 12, 2007, the two Yale students who were allegedly harassed filed a lawsuit against Anthony Ciolli and a number of Autoadmit's anonymous posters, claiming their "character, intelligence, appearance and sexual lives have been thoroughly trashed by the defendants". Filed in the District Court of Connecticut, the case, Doe v. Ciolli, 307CV00909 CFD, cites violation of privacy, defamation, infliction of undue emotional distress, and copyright infringement against Ciolli and several anonymous posters. The two plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, David Rosen, a Yale Law School professor, and Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in computer and internet law. While AutoAdmit's reported lack of IP logging may prevent the plaintiffs from ever learning the defendants' true identities, the case could prove to be very significant within computer and internet law if it does make it to trial. The plaintiffs subsequently dropped Ciolli's name from the list of defendants, and successfully obtained a subpoena of Internet service providers in hopes of identifying the anonymous defendants. The attorneys have now discovered the names of some, but not all, of the offending posters.
For another take, see this June 13, 2007 posting on the lawsuit by law prof Eugene Volokh.

Last Wed., Sept. 3, Isaac Arnsdorf of the Yale Daily News reported:

Anonymous posting online may be getting a little less anonymous.

With the help of a subpoena issued eight months ago, two female Yale Law School students who were smeared on the Web forum AutoAdmit in 2005 finally found out this summer whom they are suing for defamation — more than a year after they first filed. * * *

While this development does not break any new legal ground, several experts interviewed said, it is one of the few — and certainly one of the highest-profile — examples of defamation lawsuits that have successfully pierced the veil of online anonymity.

Now, the Indiana University connection: This morning the Indianapolis Star featured this front-page story by Francesca Jarosz, headed "Critics say gossip on Juicy Campus Web site goes too far: Student who was targeted says campus Web site crosses the line." Some quotes:
The attack on Thaddeus Grage was mean, anonymous and posted for all to see on the Internet.

It accused the Indiana University sophomore of having unprotected sex and of being a "disgusting lying sleezeball." Thirteen people added to the post by detailing stories about Grage, calling him a racist and saying he has sexually transmitted diseases.
Advertisement

When the comments were posted in March, Grage, a criminal justice student from the tiny town of Clayton, worried they would mar his reputation, especially in the eyes of potential employers. He wondered whether his girlfriend would believe the lies.

"It was shocking," Grage said. "I could only hope that (my girlfriend) would trust me enough to know these things were false."

Grage considers himself a victim of JuicyCampus.com, a college gossip Web site where the attack was posted, along with hundreds of other potentially defamatory comments about students at more than 200 campuses where the site has been launched nationwide.

Juicy Campus hit IU and the University of Notre Dame's campuses in January and will expand to nine more Indiana schools this month, bringing mixed reaction among students and heightened awareness among university administrators, who say they can do little to prevent students from using the site. * * *

"What we're really providing is a forum for speech for college students where they can talk in an open and honest way," said Mark Ivester, a 2005 Duke University graduate who launched the site at seven schools in October. "It's an entertainment site; it's meant as a place for lighthearted gossip."

The gossip can turn into vicious attacks. Topics on the site include "sluts" and "ugliest girls in each (sorority) house." * * *

Everyone realizes it's ridiculous," said Drew Hainz, a Ball State junior who is excited about the site's debut at his school. "As long as you go in with that kind of mind-set, I don't see it as being a problem."

That's also part of Ivester's philosophy. He dismissed complaints that Juicy Campus could hurt students' chances with potential bosses, saying only "a very negligent employer" would consider the comments as a reference tool.

He added that everyone who uses his site has an equal opportunity to comment, so someone who is smeared can respond in defense.

"We feel very strongly that censorship is not the right answer," Ivester said. * * *

Mike Hiestand, an attorney and legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center, said students defamed on the site could go after their attackers, but it can be difficult to track who they are.

All comments are made anonymously, and users do not have to register to post on the site. Ivester emphasizes that Juicy Campus does not have its users' names, but the site did help criminal investigators find out users' identities after two students threatened shootings at separate schools.

The anonymity also causes problems for university administrators, who have difficulty finding out which students can be punished for making defamatory remarks.

Some schools have attempted to thwart the site's use in other ways, including requests to the site's operators and student-government-initiated bans, but those have been mostly unsuccessful.

Schools also have voiced their complaints to state authorities. New Jersey's attorney general launched a consumer fraud investigation into Juicy Campus, and Connecticut's attorney general also is investigating the site.

The Indiana attorney general's office has not received any consumer complaints against Juicy Campus, a prerequisite for conducting a consumer fraud investigation, said Natalie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the office.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 6, 2008 07:26 AM
Posted to General Law Related