Think You're Anonymous? Think Again.
sweetpotato
Posts: 1,278
If common sense- or common decency- doesn't compel you to treat others online with respect, maybe the threat of being caught and prosecuted will.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/11/09/autoadmit/print.html
An update on the lawsuit filed by two female law students for online anonymous attacks about their looks, their smarts, and graphic comments about what the harassers would like to do to them.
Nov. 10, 2007 | Back in March we wrote about an online discussion forum called AutoAdmit that advertises itself as "the most prestigious college discussion board in the world." According to the Washington Post, this "prestigious" discussion board also included threatening, sexist, racist and homophobic comments -- including strings of online attacks against two female law students who found out from friends that AutoAdmit users, often writing anonymously, had posted messages that included photographs gleaned from social networking sites, comments about the students' physical appearances, slurs about their supposed sexual promiscuity, and rape threats. The students, one of whom is a Yale Law student who graduated from college Phi Beta Kappa, were not only personally distressed by these anonymous attacks but also worried that the postings were harming their professional reputation and making it harder to get jobs.
Anyway, in June two of the women attacked on the site filed a lawsuit against the commenters -- along with Anthony Ciolli, a former administrator of the site (AutoAdmit's administrators refused the women's requests to have the offensive posts taken down). According to this blog post from the Wall Street Journal, many legal experts were surprised that Ciolli was named in the suit to begin with, since "the law was clear on protecting site administrators from lawsuits over content posted by a site's users." That's probably why, as the Journal reports, Ciolli's name was dropped from the complaint. (But, as the Journal points out, his absence was made up for by the addition of 11 new pseudonyms -- which now total 39, and include monikers like "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey" and "hitlerhitlerhitler.")
I bring this up for two reasons: First, the Post article from March doesn't really make clear how horrible the comments on the AutoAdmit threads were. If you read the actual complaint (posted here by the Journal) you'll see that the women -- named DOE I and DOE II in an attempt to protect them from further harassment -- were subjected to statements like "Clearly she deserves to be raped so that her little fantasy world can be shattered by real life" and "I would like to hate-fuck [DOE I] but since people say she has herpes this might be a bad idea" (that second one was posted to a thread called "Which female YLS students would you sodomize?").
Please note that neither plaintiff knows who these commenters were; nor did they participate actively in AutoAdmit's community -- they found out about these postings from friends.
I continue to find it horrifying how many people seem to view the anonymity of the Web as an invitation to let loose with their vilest, most hate-filled selves. It makes me question people's inner nature -- sure, that guy at the gym seemed nice, but when he goes home, does he write things like "I wish to rape [DOE I] and [DOE II] in the ass"?
Reading over the lawsuit also left me with a practical question: Now that Ciolli's name has been dropped, who exactly can the lawyers go after? It's a question that extends beyond this case -- I mean, having defendants with names like "Ugly Women" and "pauliewalnuts" is ridiculous enough, but it also presents the obvious challenge of how you're supposed to prosecute them. Someone who identifies him- or herself simply as "Spanky" isn't likely to provide a home address.
But I have good news for anyone wondering the same thing. I called up Keker & Van Nest, the law firm representing the two women, and spoke to one of the attorneys involved. He declined to comment specifically on this case, since he doesn't like to comment on pending litigation (and besides, why let these trolls know about how you can find them?). But when I asked him whether it was possible to track someone down purely from a pseudonym, he assured me that yes, yes it was. I asked him to keep me updated on the status of this case, so look for more updates in the future, but for the moment, let's just put it this way: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey should be worried.
-- Catherine Price
Utne.com
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/11/09/autoadmit/print.html
An update on the lawsuit filed by two female law students for online anonymous attacks about their looks, their smarts, and graphic comments about what the harassers would like to do to them.
Nov. 10, 2007 | Back in March we wrote about an online discussion forum called AutoAdmit that advertises itself as "the most prestigious college discussion board in the world." According to the Washington Post, this "prestigious" discussion board also included threatening, sexist, racist and homophobic comments -- including strings of online attacks against two female law students who found out from friends that AutoAdmit users, often writing anonymously, had posted messages that included photographs gleaned from social networking sites, comments about the students' physical appearances, slurs about their supposed sexual promiscuity, and rape threats. The students, one of whom is a Yale Law student who graduated from college Phi Beta Kappa, were not only personally distressed by these anonymous attacks but also worried that the postings were harming their professional reputation and making it harder to get jobs.
Anyway, in June two of the women attacked on the site filed a lawsuit against the commenters -- along with Anthony Ciolli, a former administrator of the site (AutoAdmit's administrators refused the women's requests to have the offensive posts taken down). According to this blog post from the Wall Street Journal, many legal experts were surprised that Ciolli was named in the suit to begin with, since "the law was clear on protecting site administrators from lawsuits over content posted by a site's users." That's probably why, as the Journal reports, Ciolli's name was dropped from the complaint. (But, as the Journal points out, his absence was made up for by the addition of 11 new pseudonyms -- which now total 39, and include monikers like "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey" and "hitlerhitlerhitler.")
I bring this up for two reasons: First, the Post article from March doesn't really make clear how horrible the comments on the AutoAdmit threads were. If you read the actual complaint (posted here by the Journal) you'll see that the women -- named DOE I and DOE II in an attempt to protect them from further harassment -- were subjected to statements like "Clearly she deserves to be raped so that her little fantasy world can be shattered by real life" and "I would like to hate-fuck [DOE I] but since people say she has herpes this might be a bad idea" (that second one was posted to a thread called "Which female YLS students would you sodomize?").
Please note that neither plaintiff knows who these commenters were; nor did they participate actively in AutoAdmit's community -- they found out about these postings from friends.
I continue to find it horrifying how many people seem to view the anonymity of the Web as an invitation to let loose with their vilest, most hate-filled selves. It makes me question people's inner nature -- sure, that guy at the gym seemed nice, but when he goes home, does he write things like "I wish to rape [DOE I] and [DOE II] in the ass"?
Reading over the lawsuit also left me with a practical question: Now that Ciolli's name has been dropped, who exactly can the lawyers go after? It's a question that extends beyond this case -- I mean, having defendants with names like "Ugly Women" and "pauliewalnuts" is ridiculous enough, but it also presents the obvious challenge of how you're supposed to prosecute them. Someone who identifies him- or herself simply as "Spanky" isn't likely to provide a home address.
But I have good news for anyone wondering the same thing. I called up Keker & Van Nest, the law firm representing the two women, and spoke to one of the attorneys involved. He declined to comment specifically on this case, since he doesn't like to comment on pending litigation (and besides, why let these trolls know about how you can find them?). But when I asked him whether it was possible to track someone down purely from a pseudonym, he assured me that yes, yes it was. I asked him to keep me updated on the status of this case, so look for more updates in the future, but for the moment, let's just put it this way: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey should be worried.
-- Catherine Price
Utne.com
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
yes, he probly does. not becos he's a guy, but becos our society pushes us to be ashamed or enslaved by our normal human desires. this is the only outlet some people have when a guy can no longer smile or compliment a woman at work for fear of a sexual harassment suit. we are so constrained by ridiculous standards of PC and propriety that people have to get that stuff out somehow.
That's ridiculous. It is not a "normal human desire" to want to rape women, and certainly not to advertise it. And these weren't "smiles or compliments", these are seriously messed up statements.
You're really blaming society for these idiots? Where did personal responsibility go?
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
no, i'm saying that if you force people to supress normal desires and behaviors, it will come out tenfold eventually. it goes the other way too... there is still a huge double standard about female promiscuity... why did these girls take such heat for their behaviors? becos there is ridiculous social pressure on women to adhere to ridiculous standards of propriety. when it breaks out... you get normal girls on girls gone wild vids becos they've been forced into feeling ashamed so long they have no balance. likewise, guys have been pressured to repress normal aggressive behaviors becos they are considered chauvinistic or whatever, and it bursts out in this totally reprehensible and disproportionate manner: borderline sadism.
these guys should be accountable and should pay the price for it. i hope they are convicted and forced to make restitution. but that does not solve the root problem... namely that social pressures force us to deny our very human desires.