What ever happened to that Yale gals / AK47 / AutoAdmit thing?
Back in 2007, two female Yale Law School students filed a lawsuit over allegedly defamatory and threatening comments written about them on AutoAdmit.com. The stuff written went way beyond lobsters and buttcheeks, and the women said the resulting Google hits on their names did serious damage to their job prospects.
The case was near and dear to ATL readers’ hearts in its challenge to the culture of anonymous online commentary, as the YLS students sought to out their unknown assailants (including the incongruously-named :D and more appropriately-named AK47) through the course of litigation. We covered the various twists and turns of the case, but hadn’t heard anything since last summer.
The newest issue of Portfolio Magazine has the case on its cover. In Slimed Online, David Margolick identifies the YLS plaintiffs as Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani and explores the legal ramifications for cyber bullying.
The article is a great read, and we’d advise checking it out. We’re a big fan of the writer: Margolick covered the O.J. Simpson trial as the New York Times national legal correspondent in the 90s, and was one of Kash’s favorite journalism professors last semester.
For the lazy among you, we have chosen some highlights, including the “where are they now” grafs (hint: hello, Cleary). Find out whether job prospects were really damaged, after the jump.
Here’s a little background, for the uninitiated. Heller and Iravani were subjected to some nasty comments on AutoAdmit. If you Google their names, you’ll find:
[S]hocking remnants of what the two women have been subjected to in the past couple of years, not only when they Googled themselves but whenever a law firm or a classmate or a date — or anyone else, for that matter — checked them out. “Is Brittan Heller a lying bitch?” screams one link. “Heide Iravani deserves to be raped,” shrieks another….They wrote, falsely, that Heller has herpes and had bribed her way into Yale — helped by a secret lesbian affair with the dean of admissions — and that Iravani has gonorrhea, is addicted to heroin, and had exchanged oral sex with Yale Law School’s dean for a passing grade in civil procedure.
If the accusation had been going down on the prof for a “P” in an easy class like “Law and __________,” that’d be a lot more defamatory. But regardless, people don’t like Google hits about drugs, STDs, or ass lobsters, for that matter, to be associated with their names.
Due to the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (aka Section 230), the women couldn’t sue AutoAdmit, but they could sue their tormentors:
In June 2007, they sued dozens of them in federal court in New Haven for defamation, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress. “Hiding behind pseudonyms and the smug assumption that their carefully aimed hostility can pass as merely juvenile misconduct,” the charges read, electronic wraiths trashed Heller and Iravani “for the sheer joy of destruction.” The online monikers leap off the title pages of otherwise solemn-looking court documents: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah, hitlerhitlerhitler, Dirty Nigger, Sleazy Z, stanfordtroll, lonelyvirgin, Yalels2009, ak47, et al.
Some suggest that the Ayatollah, Sleazy Z, and ak47 may have become the victims in the case.
Some of the defendants say the case amounts to an all-expenses-paid elitist temper tantrum in which two privileged women have cast an overly broad net, thus failing to differentiate between the really wicked and some of the tamer flamers, and have jeopardized careers in ways far more serious than theirs ever have been. One way or another, their suit highlights a culture and a legal system that still aren’t quite sure how freely people can or should speak online, how seriously to take what they say, and whether they can or should be sued for saying it.
Indeed, while Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge withdrew its offer to one of the defendants and AutoAdmit administrator, then-UPenn-3L Anthony Ciolli, things are looking good for Heller and Iravani professionally, with one bound for BigLaw and the other bound for Europe:
Professionally, at least, the two have emerged unscathed: When she graduates, Iravani will work at one of New York’s pickiest firms — Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton — while Heller is said to have been hired by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Ciolli is in “legal exile.” He found clerkships in Guam and now the Virgin Islands. He passed the New York state bar, but now has to get past the character-and-fitness committee. Good luck with that.
Slimed Online [Portfolio Magazine]
Earlier: ATL Coverage of AutoAdmit/Xoxohth




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Figgiti-FIRST!
Captain FIRST!
Tenth, sigh.....
Tenth, sigh....
First to say that Brian Leiter is a gigantic pompous douchebag.
GTO: BEST IN ISLAND LAW!
Sixth to say "tenth!"
the credited companion pieces:
http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/10/xoxohth_civilit.html
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/11/xoxohth_11_the_1.html
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/xoxohth_12_the.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
Texas judge orders web site to out anonymous commenters.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/texas-judge-orders-site-to-identify-anonymous-trolls-flamers.ars
I'm sorry, but the comments at issue went well beyond flaming. Pulling someone's name out of an online directory, making up specific rumors about them, and attempting to ruin their careers, all the while asking for someone to rape them is a bit more than innocent anonymous profanity.
Stupid bitches.
Comment removed by moderator.
"Professionally, at least, the two have emerged unscathed"
You mean their careers weren't torpedoed by the internet posting of someone calling himself hitlerhitlerhitler? How could employers not find that source credible?
lol. Have fun in Guam!!! lol.
Ahoy there GTO! Push the starboard career server to full ahead!
Ciolli is in "legal exile." HAHA. Nice life choices.
This is what I don't get about you attorney's complaining about layoffs. Why don't you start your own firm? It doesn't have to be a friggin ultra-elite IBank only client firm. Just go down to traffic court and get people out of their $400 speeding tickets. Charge them $250. Upsell them on wills and trusts. You will be grossing $1000 a day in no time, and you'll be in control of your future. You have a license to practice. We staff have nothing but MS Word skills.
so I guess it takes a few thousand miles out to sea to find employers who haven't heard about the whole XOXO fiasco.
My friends,
We gentle hearts at the Grand Ole Party want to help ease your pain from Black Thursday.
Please go to http://www.gopvalentine.com and send your special someone the Valentine that everyone wants to receive on Valentines Day.
"The Most Prestigious College Admissions Discussion Board in the World"...? So now it's not enough to graduate from a "prestigious" college... you have to find a "prestigious" place to talk about getting in?
OK, whatever.
Amen 16
abovethelaw.com/2009/02/cant_find_work_start_your_own.php
The post refers to "ass lobsters" and "buttcheeks." I am offended, please moderate.
whatever happened to the pony? somehow they never cover that.
This guy was just the administrator of the website and he got his offer pulled. Seems a little drastic; he wasn't the commenter. What's next? Will we hold Elie accountable for his failed comprehension of "your" and "you're"?
Didn't Heller dissolve?
Hehe, favorite journalist professor OF LAST SEMESTER. Nice way to beat out what, 3-4 members of the competition?
16
There is nothing that a Biglaw associate has ever done that would prepare them to do that.
And it may seem like a lot of bitching...but that gigatic weight that is student loan debt is a huge disencentive to taking any risks when that payment is due every month.
If every firm that fired first years...had paid off those 1st years law school debt things would be very different.
As for senior associates...they probably should be better off with their savings and debt load, but they also probably now have a wife, kids and mortgage.
Like the rest of the country, lawyers and associates are over leveraged...just like their clients, and it is very scary.
What exactly was the deal with Ciolli? Did the firm think he engaged in any of the flaming? Or was he fired for generally having 'bad judgment' in not moderating the threatening speech?
any photos?
Ciolli = life poaned.
22: what pony?
-curious
Did anything positive come out of this?
Autoadmit is a disgusting site and its administrators deserve to be both liable for its content, and, in Ciolli's case, not fit for the bar of any state.
Sec. 230(c) is ripe for reinterpretation. Zeran was a bad decision, though it was more reasonable back in '97. Making websites liable as distributors for allegedly tortious content (as websites are with respect to content that allegedly infringes copyright) is perfectly within Congress' goals to make the Internet a place where the free flow of information survives, but subject to similar constraints as in the real world. Note that this doesn't mean websites should still be immune as publishers (230c clearly directs that).
*should = shouldn't in above
32 - were you one of the Keker first year's assigned to the case?
feigning shock and outrage over autoadmit is pretty passe, especially for a website that so shamelessly pilfers the board's memes.
30 - this entire issue issue (and subsequent lawsuit) arguably started over a pony. i only know about it secondhand.
32 here.
No, 34, just a lawyer with a sense of empathy and an understanding of sec 230 jurisprudence.
19 - it's called a dictionary. Please use it to look up "facetious" and "tongue-in-cheek."
Ciolli is the real victim in this case.
"Autoadmit is a disgusting site" - no it is a website that allows some fuck-ups to post disgusting things; while other threads are funny, insightful, timely, and even helpful.
Stop being such a fucking reactionary sissy.
32 = Brian Leiter
39 - pedo bear I think you are lost.
26. YOU HAVE A LICENSE TO PRACTICE. Of course a BigLaw associate has no preparation to do this, but Bill Gates had no preparation to start Microsoft. Sometimes you just have to give new things a try.
I'm not saying you should quit your BigLaw job, if you still have it. I'm just saying that if you got laid off, don't be crying. Use your license to practice law. I'm out applying for jobs at the library. I can't take on clients, but you can. Do it and quit complaining. Maybe once things get to busy, you can hire me to handle your paperwork.
this post seems to suggest autoadmit and abovethelaw are different things. I'm confused. It's all garbage. but, of course, I like to read it. I also watch american idol
Guys at my high school used to say stuff like that about one of those girls all the time. Because one of those girls actually went to my high school. It was no big deal.
Guys at my high school used to say stuff like that about one of those girls all the time. Because one of those girls actually went to my high school. It was no big deal.
Dick Cheney raped George Bush of his power. George Bush must have smoked crack to start war in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld ate Rice.
From: Cheese-eating-surrender-monkey Jr.
what a waste of judicial time and resources. he called me a ****, they called me a ****. this kind of childly dispute belongs not in a real court, but rather the people's court.
I was a long time autoadmit poster - back it was an excellent source of information regarding law school admissions. I will note, however, that I was disgusted with the whole harassment episode and left forever shortly thereafter.
Ciolli has gotten exactly what he deserves. He has never been honest about his role in deleting threads (long before this crap happened, he called himself a full partner in running the site and would brag about being able to delete threads), and his response to the plaintiffs makes him entirely unsympathetic.
Even if one supports his free-speech-at-all-costs perspective, that in no way justifies his blowing off the plaintiffs and mocking them for not asking nicely enough to delete the slanderous threads. What was he expecting, for the women to come and kiss his @ss to stop the horrific things that were being said about them? Justifying his inaction by claiming they were uncivil to him is a pathetic cop-out.
The guy made his bed, and now he gets to lie in it. A lot of people warned him that he was acting like an idiot and would pay a steep price for what was happening on that site.
Several of the other defendants, however, really got a raw deal. Some people were dragged in for juvenile - but innocuous - comments, while others who wrote horrifying, degrading things were left out of the suit entirely. Hard to figure out the plaintiffs' rationale for choosing some of their defendants, knowing that revealing their identities would destroy those people's careers.
Ciolli is a piece of shit that deserves everything bad that comes to him.
He is insufferable, impossible to work with, and it wouldn't surprise me if the rumors were true about him having Aspergers. It would explain so much about him.
They say they did it for teh lulz, but the messages were way out of line in my opinion. And I started this whole f*cking legal message board concept back in 1998....
I am glad Ciolli is experiencing the ramifications of his involvement with that website. He should have taken action to delete degrading/humiliating threads/comments about named people on the website - these comments served no useful purpose and brought down the quality of the site, which was once an excellent source of law school admissions info.
I know a few people who were discussed on the site and they were distressed and humiliated because of it. To let people suffer like that when you're one of a couple of people who could have prevented it is disgusting to me.
Further, the lawsuit thing could have gotten way more out of hand. I know for a fact that girls mentioned on the site (and there are dozens) were emailing other victims trying to get them involved in stopping the nastiness...there could have been way more people involved in litigation then there is. They should be happy it didn't spiral completely out of control with 10+ plaintiffs.
Can you imagine a judge reciting those names?
I picture the judge from my cousin vinny saying: "Are you.... cheese eating surrender monkey?"
THAT'S teh lulz....
Good luck GTO....
"gwaaa... gwaaa..."
It is just a stupid internet board and the damage caused by whatever The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rolla said there was infinitesimal compared to the harm the Does attempted to dish out on a bunch of law students in the real world. I mean some of them are being sued in federal court for a single internet post that said something no worse than what is said about Elie or Kash on here every single day--just stupid comments no one should take seriously.
I hope Ciolli wins his lawsuit.
I can't believe the pettiness of these girls. Yet another reason to have contempt for that Stalinist think-tank masquerading as a law school in New Haven.
55: you're wrong. Elie, Kash and David Lat are all at the very least limited-purpose public figures, if not full public figures. Plus, they run this freakin' site and can (and do) delete any comment that they find especially reprehensible. Those two women at YLS were private figures and had no powers to moderate the heinous content on autoadmit. To echo Professor Citron in the piece, I'm incredibly glad that they decided to fight back. To echo commenter 32, I also believe that the law will change. Free speech on the internet comes at a price and the price has now become too high.
I think Ciolli became an NYU tax llm
1. Ciolli could and did delete threads. There was no principle involved in his deciding to leave the threads up; he was just being a dick to people who didn't ask him "nicely" enough.
2. I posted on the site a while ago (though had no connection to the thread in question).
Say what you will about AutoAdmit, at its height (say, four years ago?) it was capable of being funny as hell and was during my time in law school the single best place to go to get a political debate going. Now, granted, that probably says more about the pathetic state of political debate at law school, but, nevertheless, there was a serious side to it that wasn't available elsewhere.
3. As crass as the comments were, the women never had much of an argument that they were actually hurt by it in their employment to begin with. People at top schools, yeah-even at Yale, fail to get clerkships with a firm, especially after their 1L year all the time. (I think one of the women later said it damaged her in her second year clerkship, but not originally--If I'm wrong in saying it was 1L for both of them, though, feel free to correct me.) If you read their original brief, it also seemed much more geared to being a press release than a serious prelude to a lawsuit.
4. Kashmir: "Ciolli is in "legal exile." He found clerkships in Guam and now the Virgin Islands. He passed the New York state bar, but now has to get past the character-and-fitness committee. Good luck with that."
The tone and subject matter of this site are way too close to AutoAdmit to engage in snark over Ciolli.
The guy was a dick and had some of this coming, but he didn't deserve to have his career destroyed over it and these women seem to be at least a little cavalier over destroying people who did things that were pretty peripheral to the key bits of their complaint.
the pony: http://www.google.com/search?q="kazem+iravani"+horses
LOL --60!! The pony thing is hilarious! Is that true?
57, that is pretty non-responsive to my point that the Does didn't suffer more harm than say Elie or Lat--perhaps their feelings were hurt, but it turns out their job prospects were fine (see, Cleary, Mofo, International Criminal Court, etc.). I'm speculating that they had an exagerrated sense of entitlement as YLS 1Ls when they claimed they couldn't get a clerkship b/c of the posts.
And I'm not arguing freedom of speech doctrine, but I would err on the side of free speech on the internet. I even feel like I have to re-read my post now to make sure it only states my opinions because I'm a tiny bit afraid those sue-happy whiners would try to out me as poster #55.
The only good thing to come out of this is that the Does have very publicly wasted 3 years and $50k of some law firm's money to accomplish nothing but outting 3 twenty-somethings as internet posters (not to mention keeping their names in the headlines). I hope anyone else contemplating pursuing legal action over a similar claim sees how much of a waste it would be.
tokyorose used to be a frequent poster on autoadmit and many of his comments were exceptionally sympathetic to brian leiter.
62: For some incredibly strange reason, you are completely ignoring the rest of the substance of the Does' claims, e.g., the threats of rape and sexual assault; the claims that they have STDs; that one slept with the dean of admissions (or whoever else) to get into YLS -- essentially, all things that victimize women. It's sad when men (and yes, 62, I am sure you're male, as am I) don't realize the emotional and psychological toll of such bullying and harassment (either in cyberspace or in real life) on women.
64: "the threats of rape and sexual assault; the claims that they have STDs; that one slept with the dean of admissions (or whoever else) to get into YLS"
While I can't speak to the first - if you have a problem with the latter two, exactly why are you reading this site?
And all of this is just half of the story...
There's still the Ciolli counter-suit to come...
http://www.abovethelaw.com/anthony_ciolli/
And all of this is just half of the story...
There's still the Ciolli counter-suit to come...
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/03/breaking_anthony_ciolli_goes_o.php
66/67--
If Ciolli's failure to serve Brittan Heller is indicative of his and his lawyer's skills, then his countersuit is as dead as his career.
To #22,
Pony has already been covered here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k8FKdDGD7Y
Margolick bills himself as some balanced, maverick journalist, but this is just a rehash of the same old story told in the original Washington Post article, with a few additional names thrown in to compound the damage. Margolick's a hack.
I love the posts comparing the seriousness of these Autoadmit threads to comments people made in high school. A fleeting comment made in high school is the same as a written communication forever published on a very searchable internet?
71, lol at "written communications forever published"
these are not newspaper headlines, they are random message board posts and readers can clearly see that.
How are y'all managing to equate Does' loss of reputation due to defamation (i.e. publicly-made statements about them that are untrue and negative) and the outed defendants' loss of reputation due to being named as defendants for STUFF THEY ACTUALLY DID? Are y'all so unfamiliar with the concept of accountability for one's actions that you don't see any difference?
"How are y'all managing to equate Does' loss of reputation due to defamation (i.e. publicly-made statements about them that are untrue and negative) and the outed defendants' loss of reputation due to being named as defendants for STUFF THEY ACTUALLY DID? Are y'all so unfamiliar with the concept of accountability for one's actions that you don't see any difference?"
Easy,
1. There's no evidence anybody, much less their employers, took the statements made about these two women seriously.
2. There's plenty of evidence the stuff against Ciolli et al. has led to him losing his job and threatens to destroy other people.
3. As classless as what Ciolii and the commenters did was--at least for a good portion of them, Ciolii included, it didn't warrant having their careers destroyed. For these women to seek having their careers destroyed just because they didn't get firm jobs as 1Ls (which apparently they've gotten into their head is so unusual for YLS students, there must be some conspiracy behind it) has gone beyond justice and amounts to pettiness, maliciousness, a sense of entitlement, and classlessness that I have little sympathy for.
Just how stupid and insensitive are you, 74? Nobody took the statements made about the Does seriously? How about the Does? Does that matter? How dense are you? If you were a women and anonymous posters were threatening to rape you online, would you take it seriously? Read their complaint to see if they alleged that they took it seriously, you insufferable douchebag. Seriously, you're the worst of the worst.
"Just how stupid and insensitive are you, 74? Nobody took the statements made about the Does seriously? How about the Does? Does that matter? "
No, it doesn't.
If you know anything about the law, I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but apparently I do.
For them to make a case re: defamation, loss of reputation, damages, etc. if they took the statements seriously and nobody else did--and they have yet to provide a good argument that they did--their feelings here don't matter at all.
If they want to attack Ciolli and the posters as being pieces of s--t, feel free, but if we're talking about the law, and we are, spare me your feelings. They amount for nothing.
"If you were a women and anonymous posters were threatening to rape you online, would you take it seriously?"
From the XO board?
No.
I believe, though it's been a while, I had people on that board threaten to kill me. It was remarkably stupid and crass s--t, but nobody took it seriously.
And, again, my problem isn't so much that Ciolli and the worst posters involved are paying for this so much as the extent these two women want to make them pay, which has well beyond justice at this point into (as it was labeled above) an "elitist temper tantrum."
I do happen to know a little about defamation law (practicing attorney, primary practice area in defamation). Damages are presumed for per se defamation claims. Presumed. Allegations of sexual misconduct are per se defamation in many jurisdictions, as are allegations of crime and disease. There is no need for the plaintiffs to prove anything if they're claiming that the defamation was per se (and, from what I've seen in the comments, they have a very good argument to that fact.)
So now you're asking us to feel sorry for the twenty-odd or so anonymous posters who are now being dragged through the mud - their "good names" sullied by (wait for it) things that they actually *did*, and that anything they said online should be protected because it will hurt them much more than it eventually ended up hurting the Does? Please. You're conveniently forgetting the year (or more) that the Does were viciously attacked. Just because it's in the past doesn't vitiate any claim they now have.
Honestly, people should think twice before libeling others in an online medium. Libel is a steep standard and does not equate to calling someone a "moron" or "idiot", especially if the target is also not called out by name. But calling someone by name a slut, diseased whore, or what-have-you *is* actionable when it's not done anonymously. Why should we have different rules for the internet? If an example must be made so that others can learn that their actions online have consequences, so be it. The defendants will be humiliated and scorned because their real names will be become public? I'm sorry, but my sense of empathy doesn't extend quite that far.
As classless as what Ciolii and the commenters did was--at least for a good portion of them, Ciolii included, it didn't warrant having their careers destroyed.
__________________________________________
So hire them, 76--or, if you're not in a position to do so, go to your firm's hiring committee, or anyone else you know in a decision-making position at any firm, and ask that they hire them.
You can also go to any clients who happen to hear about this tawdry affair and express some discomfort with having people with such poor judgment handle their legal matters, and give them your little tough guy speech about "sparing you their feelings."
I'm sure that with an advocate like you, especially in the current hiring environment, they're futures will be sparkling and bright!
"Damages are presumed for per se defamation claims. Presumed. "
No.
It depends on the state and the type.
They are often, though, in sexual misconduct cases so fair enough.
However, I have already said the worst posters here are pieces of s--t. They weren't just trying to out those guys, they were trying to out a fast slew of people, a good portion of which consisted of the same sort of mindless internet banter that gets tossed around on a regular basis.
And they weren't viciously attacked for a year, at least outside of the mindless stuff that no one takes seriously. It was a few threads.
"The defendants will be humiliated and scorned because their real names will be become public?"
They are not just being humiliated and scorned, there careers are being threatened to be destroyed for something that you read on this website on a regular basis and something that you know as well as I do a wide portion of law students have tossed around about fellow law students (okay, not the rape part, but the other stuff). When it's tossed out that some guy, some male partner at Kirkland, has Herpes, people weren't calling for heads to chopped off over it. If you're pristine in this area and consider gossiping the same sort of sin 17th century Puritans did, cool, but I find that hard to believe when you're posting on this site.
Okay, I see what you're saying - damages are presumed if they show it's per se defamation.
Misread it, but no s---.
I hate when people say that the girls were "self-entitled." If you go to Yale, you get a clerkship and a job unless you show up high on crack to your interviews, or employers google your name and take the results seriously.
I feel bad for ciolli. Seems like he is not altogether innocent, but created a monster and didn't realize it got out of hand. now he lives in guam.
"I hate when people say that the girls were "self-entitled." If you go to Yale, you get a clerkship and a job unless you show up high on crack to your interviews"
No - not during your first year you don't.
A large portion do, but it's not a given.
77, yes we should have different rules for different contexts. The Times printing something should be treated differently than the bathroom wall. But you are a plaintiff's lawyer apparently who believes every possible slight should be legally actionable. You obviously use the internet--do you take any "statement of fact" you read by an anonymous commentor at face value?
You obviously use the internet--do you take any "statement of fact" you read by an anonymous commentor at face value?
__________________________________________
Stop using this spurious analogy. If you can't even honestly acknowledge what wasn't and doesn't done, how can you possible defend someone's "right" to their career despite what they did?
Given the jobs these two Yale Law graduates and plaintiffs have right now, I fail to see how their careers were harmed in any way. The whole lawsuit is ridiculous and wasting a lot of time and money. I can only guess it's about some lawyer (and I'm not going to say who because he/she might sue me) making a name for himself in the area of law that concerns internet forums, "Internet law" I guess.
As for the rape and sexual assault threats that were made, yes, nobody should be making those sorts of posts and you don't joke around with stuff like that, but they (plaintiffs in the case) should have dealt with law enforcement and pursued criminal charges if they were truly concerned about their safety, and let a prosecutor deal with it, not file a civil suit.
So the argument is that if some uptight employers wouldn't take kindly to your actions that are socially acceptable among certain law students, you are being horribly horribly wronged if those employers do hear about it?
I don't think I want the social norms of AutoAdmit to become those of the rest of the world. I'm really OK with the rest of the world reacting negatively (in a non-state-actor, not-violating-1st-Amendment way) to AutoAdmit-accepted behavior. If the Does could have obtained the names of the anonymous posters without civil discovery, I doubt they would have filed the lawsuit. They want to know who hit them, and they're letting everyone else know too. I have no problem with that.
83 - When the bathroom wall is "googleable" and open to not just anyone in a school, rest area, or workplace, then in my estimation it *can* rise to the level of the New York Times (although publisher liability for defamation is a different matter altogether, as is website operator liability). I have people calling my office all the time whining about something or other that was posted about them online, and I routinely turn them down. Again (if I may repeat an earlier point), calling someone a "jerk", "idiot", "moron" or "fucktard" doesn't really cut it in court, and I'd be liable for frivolous lawsuit sanctions if I even filed it. There is a line for most normal people about what is decent and what is indecent when it comes to defamation, and that's why we have those laws on the books and that's why it's usually left up to a jury to decide.
The newness of this medium gives rise to people that are really so stupid as to believe that they can post the most horrible and vile stuff from behind a curtain of anonymity, and that needs to be stopped. Not "freedom of speech". Not anonymity. Just as we have a right to bear arms under the Constitution and yet can still be held liable for those we shoot negligently or deliberately, we also have freedom of speech but should still be held responsible for what we say (or type).
-77