|
U.S. Internet defamation suit tests
online anonymity
June 16, 2007
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - It bills itself
as the world's "most prestigious college discussion board," giving a
glimpse into law school admissions policies, post-graduate social
networking and the hiring practices of major law firms.
But the AudoAdmit site, widely used
by law students for information on schools and firms, is also known
as a venue for racist and sexist remarks and career-damaging rumors.
Now it's at the heart of a
defamation lawsuit that legal experts say could test the anonymity
of the Internet.
After facing lewd comments and
threats by posters, two women at Yale Law School filed a suit on
June 8 in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, that
includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of the site, which has
generated more than 7 million posts since 2004.
According to court documents, a
user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005
seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit,
entitled "Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law." Another threatened to
rape and sodomize her, the documents said.
The plaintiff, a respected Stanford
University graduate identified only as "Doe I" in the lawsuit,
learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving
to Yale in Connecticut. The posts gradually became more menacing.
Some posts made false claims about
her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused
her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a
lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator, the court papers
said.
The plaintiff said she believes the
harassing remarks, which lasted nearly two years, cost her an
important summer internship. After interviewing with 16 firms, she
received only four call-backs and ultimately had zero offers -- a
result considered unusual given her qualifications.
Another woman, identified as Doe
II, endured similar attacks. The two, who say they suffered
substantial "psychological and economic injury," also sued a former
manager of the site because he refused to remove disparaging
messages. The manager had cited free-speech protections.
LIFTING THE MASK
"The harassment they were subjected
to was quite grotesque," said Brian Leiter, a professor at
University of Texas Law School. "Any judge who looks at this is
going to be really shocked, and particularly shocked because these
appear to be law students."
The suit is being watched closely
to see if the posters are unmasked, a step that could make anonymous
chat room users more circumspect. It also underlines the growing
difficulty of protecting reputations online as the Web is used
increasingly to screen prospective employees and romantic partners.
"They can't hide behind anonymity
while they are saying these scurrilous and menacing things," said
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California,
Los Angeles.
He said the site was not liable
under federal protections that are more lenient on Web sites than TV
and newspapers. Prosecuting the manager could also be difficult
because he did not write the posts, Volokh added. But the anonymous
posters look liable and their careers could be jeopardized, he said.
"This ought to be a warning to be
people that if you say things that are not just rude but arguably
libelous and potentially threatening and perhaps actionable on those
grounds then their identity might be unmasked," he said.
Finding and identifying the posters
-- including one called "The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah" -- could be
tough but is not impossible. The process involves subpoenas issued
to Internet Service Providers for records, and then more subpoenas
to companies, institutions or people identified on those records.
"I've said in my blog the most vile
posters on that board are two subpoenas away from being outed," said
Leiter. "This led to much amusement by the anonymous posters on the
board.
"But they are about to find out
that this is how it works."
|
