These girls missed the most important lesson of law school: It's always better NOT to file suit. If you want your privacy and a sense of a normal life to return, drop it. I'm sure the kids posting awful things have new targets by now (or, at least, would have prior to this suit!).

There's another lesson they should have learned on the schoolyard. People are going to say horrible things to you and about you. Learn to deal with it. Acknowledging the bullies only gives them power.

this suit smacks of mutually assured destruction. i'm not sure either side has more or less to lose.

What, were they called "nappy headed hos"?

I would think the number 1 priority for the anonymous defendants would be to keep their names from being discovered and publicized. From the fact that this suit is being brought pro-bono, as well as the reaction of some bloggers and that WaPo article, it is clear that individuals will seek to prevent any known defendants from passing C&F with their respective state bars. Even if defendants secure a quick dismissal of the civil suit, if their identities are discovered, the damage may already be done (if they are indeed law students or lawyers).

I still don't see how they actually find these defendants. Its likely these bozos were posting from the law school library - even if you can trace the IP address back to that or the emails from some anonymous gmail account, its going to take an awful lot of detective work to find them, and can't imagine they get all of the subpoenas they need to track the identities all the way back.

Some of the anonymous defendants who are central to the litigation actually revealed quite a lot about their identities in the website.

The monikers they used to make the offensive posts were in some cases connected up with other pseudonyms that had in turn been connected with their identities. All of this was on AutoAdmit.

While this inculpatory information is likely to have been deleted from the board by now, I imagine the plaintiffs' counsel had already obtained it, so the barn door was shut after the horse was out.

Depositions are going to be key.

Any word yet on who the anonymous posters are? A previous poster suggested that Paulie Walnuts' identity is not a well-kept secret.

12:51:

You're exactly right. It's just not that easy to trace an IP address to an individual, particularly where an individual is using a public or university network.

Moreover, some IP addresses are static and some are dynamic. I won't go into the boring details here, but using a wireless network adds another level of difficulty in identifying an individual.

Finally, it's not exacly clear whether AutoAdmit even retains IP addressess.

I'd be surprised if the defendants are located.

God, I loathe Ann Althouse. Why is she famous again?

I had a difficult time finding a summer associate position. Who can I sue?

I tend to agree with those who say this is just privileged Yale Law students who think they're too important to be subject to nasty comments.

There is an important lesson to be learned, though -- go buy one of those programs that shield your IP address (GhostSurf is one, I believe) if you're going to post on such sites!

2:39 - don't tell me that the "who can sue whom for what?" method of teaching law is flawed!?!?!?!? *GASP*

Interesting that the complaint acknowledges that on autoadmit it's easy to impersonate others by signing on with the same screen name. Not the kind of thing I would have mentioned right off the bat.

All of the technological obstacles to finding IP addresses are well noted. That being said, I would be worried about people coming forward and putting names (or at least details) to those anonymous screen names and the like. As commenters have noted, some people did put identifying details in other posts that could be used to fill in the blanks and reveal an identity.

Finally, I would expect that the people who said the least objectionable things on these threads--things such as "I'm in line" or implying nonviolent sexual desire in the abstract--may be the easiest to discover the identities of and may end up paying the highest price in the whole suit (save A.Ci.)

--1st 2:51 Commenter

Man, Glenn Reynolds is one to talk about free speech:

"I'm against Euro-style press regulation, of course. But much of the British press has been even more shoddily political and dishonest in its war coverage than its Ratheresque counterparts here. Lack of patriotism and honesty, plus lack of self-discipline, are likely to lead to calls for regulation."

The merits of the lawsuit aside, I hope the identity of the posters becomes public so that the people they deal with on a daily basis, both professionally and personally, know what kind of malicious people they are. Certainly if one of their resumes came across my desk I would pass.

3:53 -- I'm sure you'd be surprised at how many prospective employees you would pass on were you privy to every anonymous communication they've made via the internet.

Hell, let's drag out everyone's Google search log, while we're at it.

3:57 - feeling a little nervous?

3:57 -- I don't want people working for me who when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity on the Internet defame, belittle, and threaten -- most particularly threaten. Contrary to what you think, most people DON'T do it. It's called character and class, and it still matters.

4:03 -- Nah, I just think we're getting a bit ridiculous as a culture. Punishing people for their thoughts is still wrong, I hope, but I'm not so sure these days. BTW, of course there's a great deal of porn in my search log/history. Probably a bit on yours, too. The internet was built on used Kleenex.

4:08: Well said!

4:08-
The problem in the legal field is that if you have your bar license revoked, then you cannot practice law at all, even for an employer who doesn't mind your internet habits or for yourself. It is one thing to refuse to hire individuals who engage in this behavior, but likely another to refuse for any employer to hire them or to deny them the right to practice their trade on their own. IMHO, only having seen the complaint, this suit is aimed at preventing these individuals from receiving admissions to state bars.
-- 1st 2:51 Cmtr.

I feel bad for the guy on page 7 of the complaint. All he says is that the thought that the rejections were based on a website nobody takes seriously were laughable. I don't know if that guy made other, worse comments, but if that's enough to get him named as a defendant, just about anybody who ever commented on the story (including on ATL!) could be outted. And nobody much seems to care who said what - everyone is guilty by association. You tell me what's more offensive, as a lawyer.

I wonder how much of the autoadmit posting was the result of "white rage" stemming from being in the law school environment. I could be wrong about that, but it seems the racism, sexism, and outright rage displayed is a natural reaction to the over-the-top sensitivity and not-so-subtle disdain for white males that one finds in many, many law school classes. Not saying it's right (at all!). I'm just saying it's perhaps not surprising.

4:27, how can someone not have "white rage," whether express or not, when he is diluting the otherwise wonderful diversity that is celebrated daily at the law school?

I find it somewhat odd that people are quick to defend the "right" to say nearly anything one wants, no matter how grotesque, but are not quite so comfortable with having it known who says it.

At any rate, anyone who posts on the internet these days should be well aware that identifying information - even with all the bells, tricks, and so on people mention to "hide" that identity - are by no means a guarantee that your identity won't be revealed or that the possible consequences will be avoided.

Wow, so Doe I had 16 interviews, only 4 callbacks, and no offers?

I love p. 6: "On information and belief, it is unprecedented for a second year law student from Yale to participate in so many interviews without obtaining a single summer associate offer."

This is the funniest complaint ever.

What is the deal with Robert Schwartz?

4:34 - Indeed! But the law schools need the white men, if for nothing else than to pay full tuition.

not being a Yalie myself, I'd like to know what the average yield is for a 2L at OCI? How unprecedented is this?

Hmmmm.

Amusingly enough I thought up a method for "black-bagging" in a similar scenario though it's doubtful that the concept is original.

Imagine a person, named "Jack", who is operating an internet forum. Imagine you want to destroy this person but do so without any traces left behind and with the absolute appearance of innocence.

1. Create multiple internet identities with individual and unique email addresses based on fictitious information.

2. Register with "Jack's" internet forum and deliberately post a multitude of highly derogatory, offensive and defamatory comments using all of the available internet identities and taking care to hide or mask your IP address.

3. File a lawsuit against "Jack" and assorted John Does, i.e. you, for the offensive speech. File papers to find the identities of John Does, i.e. you, but fail to discover true identities thus leaving only "Jack" as the sole named defendant.

4. Gain publicity, destroy "Jack's" career, write a book.

5. Profit!

The trickiest part is in hiding and masking the IP address but there's a multitude of guides for doing that sort of thing. If nothing else making sure that your connection is routed through another country, or countries, would make tracking this stuff back to you much more difficult.

Like I pointed out. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has been posited. And I'm also sure that this isn't the actual situation with regards to this AutoAdmit case.

But it is an amusing concept as in this scenario "Jack", the most innocent of all, pays the heaviest price.

4:42 and 4:53 - be careful! that's exactly the kind of talk that got "Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied" named as a defendant.

What's the deal with Andrew "Fred Flintstone" Thau?

To the poster who asked how they would prove damages, that's probably not the point. Without knowing Connecticut law in particular, many of the statements in the claim are likely to constitute defamaton per se as they attack the plaintiffs in both their professional and moral reputations. As such, damages for those statements would be presumed.

That alone will get them past a MTD and into discovery. During discovery, Auto Admit will have to identify, to the best they can, the people who made each of these posts. Almost certainly they will be traceable to some kind of identifying information, if only the IP address from which their posts were made. If Auto Admit is like this site (and I have no idea if it is), there would even be an email address with which to trace the posters. So Plaintiffs stand a pretty good chance of identifying--and then publicly exposing--the sources of those obnoxious posts.

And if you think that's trivial, imagine being the Yale 2L or 3L who is $150 K in debt yet can't get a job anywhere because of what he/she posted on Auto Admit. No firm would want to hire someone who spouts off about rape fantasies. So who cares if there are real, collectable damages? They are fighting anonymous slurs with subpoenas, which strikes me as pretty brilliant.

6:01 - "[Defamation per se] alone will get them past a MTD and into discovery."

Not in federal court, it won't.

Discovering the Identity of Anonymous Internet Posters

By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown
New York Law Journal
September 11, 2001

News travels fast. So fast, on the Internet, that in a few hours a company's reputation can be damaged, its trade secrets revealed, its stock price slammed ("cybersmearing") or sent through the ceiling ("cyberhyping") by a few anonymous comments posted on an Internet bulletin board. Increasingly, affected companies are filing actions seeking monetary relief or an injunction against further damaging postings. In order to prosecute these and similar actions, companies are asking courts to order Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reveal the identity of anonymous posters.

This article will discuss some of the recent cases in which courts have sought to develop workable standards in dealing with requests for discovery of identifying information in cases involving anonymous on-line postings. On the one hand are individuals and companies seeking to protect their legitimate pecuniary and proprietary interests against defamatory and otherwise harmful speech. On the other hand are the free speech rights of the anonymous posters and the concerns of civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation that subpoenas are being used to harass and intimidate anonymous posters engaged in constitutionally protected speech.

Free Speech, Limitations

The right to speak versus the right to redress. The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment protects speech on the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997); the Court has also recognized a First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to distribute anonymous handbills in connection with a tax referendum). But at the same time, the Court has also recognized that there are limitations on the right to free speech, including, among other things, the application of defamation laws. See id. at 351 n.13.

Accordingly, the courts that have considered defamation cases involving anonymous Internet speech have rejected the position that there is an absolute, or near-absolute right to anonymous speech on the Internet. For example, in Melvin v. Doe, 49 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (Ct. C.P. Allegheny County Nov. 15, 2000), a Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge brought a libel action against 13 anonymous posters who alleged that she lobbied on behalf of a local attorney for a judicial appointment. The Court of Common Pleas held that "the First Amendment protections afforded the anonymous speaker do not extend to speech that may be false and injurious." The court concluded that the First Amendment interests of anonymous posters could be protected only to the extent that they "do not interfere with the underlying purposes of state tort law." Thus, the court concluded, a plaintiff may use discovery to learn the identity of an anonymous defendant once a prima facie case of libel has been established. The court acknowledged that pursuit of the defamation action would require that the anonymous speaker lose his anonymity, but held that "there is no case law which would suggest that the First Amendment leaves the states without any meaningful tort law to discourage the publication of defamatory statements concerning public officials." The case is currently on appeal, see Melvin v. Doe, Nos. 2115 WDA 2000 & 2116 WDA 2000 (Pa. Super. Ct.). See also Hvide v. Does, No. 99-22831 (11th Jud. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 770 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (rejecting the ACLU's First Amendment argument that defendants should remain anonymous until a court could make preliminary rulings about the merits of the case).

First Amendment Standard

Formulating a First Amendment standard. Other courts that have considered anonymous poster cases have articulated multipart tests to be applied in evaluating the First Amendment rights of anonymous Internet posters against the needs of plaintiffs for identifying information and have established successively more particularized standards to such requests. The first such reported case appears to be In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America On-line, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 26 (Cir. Ct. Fairfax County 2000). The court evaluated a motion to quash a subpoena issued in an action brought in Indiana state court against anonymous posters whose statements were alleged by a corporate plaintiff not only to be defamatory, but to have included confidential corporate information. The court commented that "[t]he right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions." Id. at 34-35. The court held that Virginia courts considering requests to enforce subpoenas in actions brought in other states must examine the pleadings or evidence presented by the plaintiff to determine whether the plaintiff "has a legitimate, good faith basis" for its contention that it "may be the victim of conduct actionable in the jurisdiction where suit was filed," and determine further whether the information sought "is centrally needed" to prosecute the plaintiff's claims. Id. at 37.

In Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1093 (W.D. Wash. 2001), the District Court concluded that "discovery requests seeking to identify anonymous Internet users must be subjected to careful scrutiny by the courts," and enunciated a four-part test to be utilized in determining whether the plaintiff's need outweighs the poster's first Amendment rights. A court must determine whether the subpoena was "issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose"; whether the information which the party seeks "relates to a core claim or defense"; and whether the information identifying the poster "is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense." To these requirements, essentially similar to the requirements set forth by the Virginia court in In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, the court added a fourth requirement, that the "information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source" Id. at 1095.

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently decided two cases involving anonymous Internet posters. In Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 2001), the court adopted a balancing test similar to that set forth in 2TheMart.com and In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, but adding additional requirements. Most significantly, the court held that the plaintiff seeking discovery must "undertake efforts to notify" the defendant that discovery is being sought and provide a "reasonable opportunity" to oppose the request. The plaintiff must also identify "the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech." As in the earlier cases, the plaintiff must set forth a prima facie case against the anonymous defendant and present sufficient evidence to support each cause of action pleaded. See also Immunomedics, Inc. v. Doe, 342 N.J. Super. 160 (App. Div. 2001) (applying the Dendrite test in an action alleging anonymous posting of confidential and proprietary information).

Anti-SLAPP Statutes

Anonymous posters and anti-SLAPP statutes. At least one court has treated an action filed against anonymous posters as a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" (SLAPP) and applied the California anti-SLAPP statute in disposing of the case. Some 16 states currently have similar anti-SLAPP legislation and bills are pending in a dozen more. See http://www.sirius.com/~casp/menstate.html (collecting statute) (visited Aug. 28, 2001). Anti-SLAPP statutes typically require a plaintiff seeking redress against speech involving a public issue to make some preliminary showing concerning the merits of the litigation.

In Global Telemedia International, Inc. v. Doe, 132 F. Supp.2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001), two of the anonymous posters (by then identified) sought dismissal under the California anti-SLAPP statute, which permits defendants to seek dismissal of claims arising from the exercise of free speech "in connection with a public issue" if the plaintiff cannot show a probability of success on its claims. The court found that the anonymous comments posted by the defendants did not purport to be statements of fact but were exaggerations, broad generalities, colorful and figurative and part of a "highly animated exchange." In addition, the plaintiff was unable to link the statements to the company's drop in stock prices. The court granted the defendants' motions to strike, and later awarded the defendants over $55,000 under the attorney fee award provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Nonparty anonymous posters. At least one court has considered a request for discovery concerning the identity of a nonparty anonymous posters. In Anderson v. Hale, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6127 (N.D. Il. 2001), a federal district court held that Internet account information for members of a church who posted anonymously on the church's Web site is not subject to discovery in civil rights litigation against the church and its founder. The court held that discovery of the information would chill the First Amendment associational rights of the church members and the harm resulting from the disclosure was not outweighed by a sufficient showing of need on the part of the plaintiff for the information sought. See also Doe v. 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp. at 1095 (commenting in dicta that disclosing the identity of a nonparty witness "is only appropriate in the exceptional case where the compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker").

Conclusion

An attorney counseling a client who wishes to proceed against an anonymous Internet poster should carefully analyze the client's case and consider the following:

• Is the client able to satisfy the higher level of scrutiny applied in the reported cases to actions brought against anonymous posters? The client should be prepared to identify specifically the anonymous postings that are alleged to form the basis of each cause of action and establish a prima facie case as to each cause of action alleged. The client must also be prepared to show how the information sought relates to the claims being brought.

• Is information concerning the identity of the anonymous poster otherwise available? A determination should be made as to whether the identity of an anonymous poster can be obtained from other, legitimate sources.

• Is it likely that the client can show that its need for the information will satisfy the kind of balancing analysis applied in the reported decisions? Clients should be cautioned that courts have been critical of actions that appear to be attempts merely to harass and intimidate anonymous posters rather than to obtain judicial redress.

• Is the action being contemplated subject to an anti-SLAPP statute? Plaintiffs litigating in states with anti-SLAPP statutes must consider the risk that an action may be found to fall under such a statute and might result in an award of attorney fees to the anonymous poster.

• Is identifying information being sought concerning a nonparty anonymous poster? If so, all reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the necessary information from other sources. Failing that, the client should be prepared to show a compelling need for the identifying information.

Richard Raysman and Peter Brown are partners at Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP in New York. Tracy Pulito, an associate at the firm, assisted with the preparation of this article.

Date Received: September 10, 2001

Ann Althouse lost all her credibility as a commentator by pulling for Sanjaya.

The real question is whether there is a dangerous potential for impact on "innocent" AutoAdmit posters.

A discovery request that involves randomly forking over IP addresses, and some kind of blast subpoena revelation of identities, all to be chewed over in the press and legal media, seems kind of scary.

What if Ciolli hands over erroneous IP addresses? What if the computer logged it wrong? What if two law school roommates use the same computer? This seems really dangerous and pretty much as destructive as the original defamation.

What I also find hilarious is that all the bloggers on this topic (Lat, Volokh, that dude who wrote that new book) all take it as Gospel Truth that Section Whatever will protect them, but that anon commenters are ipso facto fucked.

Well, of COURSE you'd prefer such a regime. But .. does that really make any sense going forward? Who are the "bad guys" in this autoadmit thing? The posters -- hard to identify, and possibly WRONGLY identified -- or the dude who refused to monitor his threads for obvious personal attacks and ignored deletion thereof?

Interesting how the discussion is taking this "website owners are immune" tack ... all fostered by bloggers THEMSELVES. If you think about it logically, it makes little sense.

6:55-

The point about inadvertent or wrongful IP addresses is a good one and seems, thus far, to be overlooked in everyone's discussion. I hope there is a way to avoid such a scenario, which could have the potential to implicate people whose postings were not criminal or tortious in this whole affair.

- 1st 2:51

6:01 - You know, you don't actually have to enter an e-mail address when you post to this board

These plaintiffs claim that the comments about them caused their dearth of summer employment opportunties. From a causation standpoint, doesn't it seem equally possible that people whose personalities are sufficiently offensive to induce such online vitriol against them simply came across poorly in interviews?

Amen to 7:25 p.m.

The gals won't be able to prove causation with respect to summer employment. Of that, I am certain.

But that's not the point. Our gals' real point is to expose the posters to the world at large, preferably destroying their legal careers in the process in as humiliating a way as possible. ("Oh, you're the guy who said he'd like to hate-**** that 1L? Interesting. Don't worry, I'll get back to you.")

I'd call that petty vindictiveness -- that is, if the comments weren't so foul and depraved. 4:08 had it spot-on. I question the judgment of anyone who'd write such things, even in jest.

And for what it's worth, I'm a hiring partner at a mid-sized big-city law firm. And yes, I'll eventually learn their names -- the posters, and the plaintiffs. And ain't none of 'em gonna get past the screening phase with me (not that they'd probably care given the specs of my firm, granted, but I know I'm not the only one with that response).

All in all, a colossal clusterfark, worthy only of those intelligent cretins of Yale Law School.

-- ET!

I don't get Volokh's point about "just using subpoenas" to unmask the posters.

A cursory internet search shows "[t]hese subpoenas are controversial. Courts have struggled with what standard to apply in issuing such subpoenas, recognizing that there is a very real opportunity for chilling free speech through identifying anonymous Internet communicators who may or may not have violated any rights of the plaintiff."

Am I missing something?

And here is a final thought: Tucked away in the opinion is a far-reaching comment on Internet defamation claims generally, at least when they arise out of blogs or chat rooms. The court said, “Blogs and chat rooms tend to be vehicles for the expression of opinions; by their very nature, they are not a source of facts or data upon which a reasonable person would rely. . . . ‘[I]n this context, readers are unlikely to view messages posted anonymously as assertions of fact.’”

This case was taken pro bono by a guy who wanted to try something out.

How does he plan to subpoena Ciolli to get any names, etc. when Ciollie gets the case against him dismissed for failure to state a claim?

Defamation Per Se, four categories:
1. Reflecting on P's abilities in business or profession.
2. P suffering from loathsome disease.
3. Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
4. Unchastity of a Woman.

Didn't various AA posters violate 1, 2 & 4 at some point? Maybe even 3...

Truth is a defense. :)

What's the relevance (if any) of 47 USC § 551(c)(2) (mentioned at link)? It looks like, to me, from looking at that statute, that the anon posters can fight tooth and nail to keep their ISPs from disclosing their IDs (assuming Ciolli has their ISPs to disclose in the first place). What do you think the standard would be in CT fed court in the Second Circuit for unmasking the anon posters? What do you think it SHOULD be?

barbriman, there is the problem of CONTEXT on those points.

If someone were to write in the New York Times, that "BarBriMan has Paris Hilton's anal herpes" but used your real name, then everyone in the world would assume you have herpes. Reasonable people would assume it to be true.

BUT -- if someone calling themselves "Dean Harold Koh" for comic effect, on a free-for-all message board, writes "BarBri man has herpes! And his mother was a hamster!" that is obviously not something any reasonable person would assume to be true.

Incidentally, David, Paris Hilton's lawyer recently sent a "cease and desist" letter to Gallery of the Absurd for an artwork the owner posted, with crabs crawling up Paris's leg in the piece. See link -- true story. The whole "loathsome disease" thing was his legal basis:

"The nice litttle freshwater crabs that were formally crawling about the boat had to be removed because Paris Hilton's attorney threatened to sue me for defamation. I don't understand how such a stupid cartoon can defame Ms. Hilton any more than she's already defamed herself, but if silly cartoon crabs on a boat are going to ruin Paris's image, then by golly, they must be removed!!"

"I find it somewhat odd that people are quick to defend the "right" to say nearly anything one wants, no matter how grotesque, but are not quite so comfortable with having it known who says it."

You obviously weren't aware that the First Amendment protects ANONYMOUS speech in particular.

Careful 9:15, you and ATL might be next on the Does list!

Federal Court Upholds Anonymous Speech on Internet
April 18, 2001

In a precedent-setting ruling on free speech in cyberspace, a federal court in Seattle today upheld the right to speak anonymously on the Internet. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly quashed a subpoena seeking to force an Internet service to disclose the identity of persons who spoke anonymously on an Internet message board. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represented J. Doe, one of the anonymous speakers, in blocking the subpoena.

9:15:
Yes, truth is a defense. But D presents that after P presents her Prima Facie case. Seems here P has at least enough to survive 12(b)(6), get into Discovery, and then maybe survive Summary Judgment.

9:33:
I assume you are making a fact/ opinion distinction, which is a valid one.

I agree w/ your context point, but how do you draw the line?
Aren't many statements on AA presented as reliable/ truthful, while others are silly?

I gather the Jane Does are overcoming the "balance of harm to plaintiff vs threat to speech" by focusing on the harm caused in the PAST by these statements: the law firm interviews.

The easiest method of remedying the harm without chilling speech is simply to have the website operators delete the material.

This is what makes internet defamation DIFFERENT from traditional defamation. The harm is for this material to be accessible for the rest of this women's lives from a Google search. It's "going-forward" harm. Whereas once something's been published in a newspaper, deleting it forever is not an option, as it is with this form of defamatory material.

Thus, why are the posters' identity NECESSARY to remedy the harm here? They aren't if the goal is to make this slander "go away." The suit can get it off the internet, much as a newspaper can print a retraction.

"Aren't many statements on AA presented as reliable/ truthful, while others are silly?"

Are they? Would you lard a complaint, for example, with "facts" gleaned from anonymous internet postings by people with ridiculous nicknames, as opposed to, say, the New York Times?

The goal of this suit, ultimately, should be to get this slanderous shit off the internet when one searches "Jane Doe." That is the real harm to these women. Vengefully attempting to disclose the names of anonymous posters seems only loosely connected to the harm, I would think. And the desire to seek revenge (ie, by publicizing the posters' identity) is exactly why the First Amendment protects anonymous speech.

The file-sharing cases have produced caselaw where ISP providers have transposed a number on an IP address and identified the wrong person, or mixing up IP numbers.

Can you imagine how life-destroying it would be if they subpoena the WRONG fake Dean Koh on there? I would say that is far worse than the actual original slander.

Say, one fake "Dean Koh" on autoadmit is the defamer of these girls, and the other is just some student talking about their favorite pizza joint in New Haven. But in the sloppiness of discovery, Ciolli hands over both, and their ISPs reveal their identities. And the professor running this suit leaks the identities to the press.

Forking over identities to revenge-seeking plaintiffs seems potentially dangerous. "Reveal 'em all and let God sort 'em out" seems like a bad strategy. And all the high-and-mighty "they deserve it" blog talk is a bit much. ANYONE who posts on the internet should be concerned, not just the small subset of defaming assholes.

"Contrary to what you think, most people DON'T do it. It's called character and class, and it still matters."

Riiiiiiight. Somebody's not paying attention to the new generation.

Hmmmm.

1. As far as I know ISPs aren't required to identify specific people. All they are usually required to do is hand over copies of logs.

And as someone who routinely administers networks and webservers I can tell you that IP & access logs will only tell you the IP address the webserver *thinks* the poster is using not necessarily the poster's actual real IP address as there are many ways of masking someone's real IP.

The other point is that just one set of IP & access logs won't accomplish anything. You need IP & access logs not only of the hosting website and of the user's ISP in order to match but also of any other networks in the chain of connections between those two. I.e. if I log into my ISP, remotely log into a local college's network and then do a pass-through log-in to a network in India and then post something on a website, then the website will only have the India IP address.

So you can imagine what a monumental pain this could end up being.

2. I'm rather confused about the petition itself. Ciolli is named as a defendant but there aren't any actual accusations in the petition that directs that Ciolli actually doing anything. In fact other than being named as a defendant Ciolli doesn't really even come up in the petition at all.

Isn't that rather odd? Note: IANAL. I is a code monkey. :)

11:59: Curious as to why you recognize that the XOXO material is "slanderous shit" and that it is causing real harm, but don't think that the people who put it out there should have to have their identities exposed. If the "revenge" in question is simply "identifying the people who did something wrong as the people who did it," what's wrong with that? Why all the solicitude to protect the identity of the posters when the women are going to have to live with the libels indefinitely? Since you seem to believe that the actions were wrong, why shield the wrongdoers (who are grownups and surely knew what they were doing) from the consequences? Do you think people who commit libel with their names attached to it should have their misdeeds kept quiet, too?

Was this really libel? The nature of the comments and the context is such that no reasonable person would ever believe it. Any recruitment person who saw these postings and didn't offer a job based on them would have to be insane.

I think the most logical explanation for Ciolli being named in the suit is someone wasn't satisfied that he merely lost his offer, so now they're going to make sure he explain the whole fiasco on his bar application and hopefully won't pass C&F. They have no hope of finding out the identity of the pseudonymic posters, nor do they care. They were added to inject salacious content into the complaint.

12:28:

Those are all jury questions.

two weeks later, this still looks crazy. 2:16 has it right: this is all petty vengeance on Heide and Brittan's part, not jurisprudence.