Comments on: AutoAdmit

AutoAdmit

lalex — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:19:59 -0800

3rd-year law student Anthony Ciolli has lost a job offer due to his association with law school message board AutoAdmit.

By: lalex

lalex — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:21:01 -0800

AutoAdmit has been frequently criticized for failing to moderate sexist and threatening posts. Ciolli's job offer was rescinded despite the fact that he resigned from AutoAdmit shortly after a Washington Post article discussing the site and subsequently claimed that he had no authority over message board moderation. AutoAdmit denizens react here, and Wisconsin law prof Ann Althouse wonders why law firms don't care about free speech. NYU Law student (and occasional AutoAdmit target) Jill Filipovic has a different take here, while others ponder the irony of Ciolli's plea to be "left alone."

By: eritain

eritain — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:35:59 -0800

So is it supposed to be interesting that a guy in his early twenties hung around with despicable people for too long? Or that despicable people exist in law schools? Or that employers sometimes don't hire people? Or that sometimes their reasons for declining someone are pretty good?

By: banished

banished — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:36:18 -0800

Filipovic is an ass, and so is this law firm. Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. If she was so upset about what people were posting about her, she could post her own rebuttal through the site. And both should be smart enough to know that moderating a message board brings about legal liability that just isn't there if you leave it unmoderated.

By: banished

banished — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:38:25 -0800

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:58:53 -0800

“While I was free to give input and act in an advisory manner–which I often did, with mixed results–Mr. [Jarret] Cohen always had final say over all rules and policies related to the message board,” and that Cohen “rarely granted” his requests to remove offensive material. Cohen, a 23-year-old insurance broker in Allentown, Pa., who says he founded AutoAdmit and currently runs the site, told the Law Blog: “It was me. I created the message board. I exercised ultimate authority. Anthony didn’t endorse any of this stuff. He doesn’t deserve this. This is guilt by association.”

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:02:54 -0800

It appears that three years of law school were wasted because the student didn't learn enough about the law. When McDonalds rejects his application, then maybe that will be going too far.

By: lalex

lalex — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:09:29 -0800

My understanding is that the message board was moderated, in the sense that posts were deleted (sometimes by Ciolli) if they were found to violate AutoAdmit policies.

By: Flashman

Flashman — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:13:33 -0800

I don't see a problem with "guilt by association" in this case. He's not only associating with these neanderthals, he's facilitating their behaviour, and this law firm has decided that they don't want to hire somebody like that. I think that's fair, and it's not like his career is ruined - there are plenty of less enlightened law firms full of 'dudes' like him who I'm sure will give him a job.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:14:31 -0800

Uh, banished, you do realize that to support your point here, you're citing a publication that actually *does* moderate the comments on it's message board, "in large part to shield the magazine from legal liability for hate or slander that could appear in that area"

By: liquorice

liquorice — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:25:17 -0800

If she was so upset about what people were posting about her, she could post her own rebuttal through the site. This is just silly. The guys posting over at the AutoAdmit site are hardly going to respond to ANYTHING she says in a mature manner. It'd be like yelling at a brick wall if the brick wall was drunk and prone to calling you a fat whore.

By: eritain

eritain — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:33:08 -0800

On preview, what flashman said. Ciolli's spin is cute—"free, uninhibited exchange of ideas" and "three years [...] has been wasted" (sic) and all—but (a) has he looked at what is being freely, uninhibitedly exchanged on the site he spends his time on, and (b) does he think that he's now permanently doomed to flip burgers or something? Granted, after a brief perusal of AutoAdmit, I wouldn't hire him, or anyone who spent substantial amounts of their time on it: It appears to be a free, uninhibited exchange of nearly 100%-pure, irredeemable crap. (Warning flags: (a) A 'prestigious' anything, much less 'the most prestigious' one, by definition never has to tell you that that's what it is; (b) this is the Internet, the forum's unmoderated, you know what that leads to! Jeez.) But this is because I am a curmudgeon, unusually committed to the distinction between free speech and cheap talk, and lately inclined to agree with Harlan Ellison about the unmoderated, unedited Internet: 'When they say "Gee it's an information explosion!", no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is.' Not everyone is such a grump. More to the point, I am not anyone's employer, so what I think about who I'd hire really doesn't amount to a hill (or even a plate) of beans. Somewhere, someone who does have a job to offer is going to be either more charitable or more gullible than I am, and pick this guy up. I mean, he did put in the sweat to earn a legal degree at 23 or 24, right? His brain is probably useable. He proposes to take a year 'to develop a series of positive contributions to the legal community that would go a long way toward strengthening my reputation and allaying your concerns'. If in fact he does so, he will certainly get hired somewhere. Maybe even at EAP&D, if his actions address their concerns in a way that his talk did not. They were within their rights to feel nervous about him. He's within his rights to try and assure them. If he succeeds, they'll still be within their rights to hire him after all. No biggie, just a simple case of 'put up or shut up'.

By: eritain

eritain — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:34:33 -0800

Off-topic: I'd really like to see what the Onion would say to this post.

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:45:02 -0800

Actions have consiquences. He participated in a board that, whether by design or evolution, had a substantial community revolving around stalking, harrassment, and the revelation of personal contact information (addresses, schedules, etc) of women accompanied by rape and murder threats. The "rules" for Autoadmit that occasionally resulted in a post being deleted forbade posting the real life name of the people doing the harrassing. Note, that posting the real life names, addresses, etc of women was, from Autoadmit's point of view, perfectly acceptable. Its only when their precious little posters were outed that they deleted anything. So, yeah. Actions have consequences. And his pathetic little whine "I just want to be left alone" is all the proof you need that he's convenced of his own exceptionalism. He never thought that maybe the women his posters were threatening might want to be left alone. Of course they didn't, they were guilty of having breasts, that meant that it was perfectly justifiable to stalk them, post their actual physical address and schedule, etc. But he's male, so he deserves to be left alone. Asshole.

By: Sijeka

Sijeka — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:59:12 -0800

Filipovic is an ass, and so is this law firm. Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. Yeah! Rape threats and online harassment are an essential part of free exchange of ideas! Gimme a break.

By: bclark

bclark — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:03:31 -0800

banished wrote: Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. Agreed, but the issue here is as much about anonymous speech as moderation. There is a severe trade-off for anonymous speech, as it helps produce the "invisible man culture" that roughens online discourse. Also, banished, you're quoting the "common carrier" principle, which is pretty old law -- the DMCA provides safe harbors that give administrators more flexibility in exchange for explicit waiving of liability on other stuff (see this link for a little bit on that.)

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:17:44 -0800

I am responsible for hiring people in a profession that is often looked at carefully in terms of the ethics of the individual providing services. I research every person I hire. If there are questionable activities or associations, I don't hire them. Why is this guy surprised he wasn't hired.... or, how did he get through three years of law school being that ignorant of how the world works?

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:42:46 -0800

He should sue. All he needs to do is find a good lawyer.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:45:18 -0800

That final link to Bitch PhD is bang on the nail, IMO.

By: spitbull

spitbull — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:45:38 -0800

Good.

By: eriko

eriko — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:46:26 -0800

Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. Free speech without moderation is one thing. Free speech without consequence is another.

By: NekulturnY

NekulturnY — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:07:16 -0800

From the WaPo article: Cohen said he no longer keeps identifying information on users because he does not want to encourage lawsuits and drive traffic away. Asked why posters could not use their real names, he said, "People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them." "(associate dean Gary Clinton from Penn) 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." Poetic justice, I'd say. Maybe he can sell the rights to his story to the 'Legally Blonde' franchise?

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:07:54 -0800

By: muddgirl

muddgirl — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:14:03 -0800

Wow, I feel like some of these lawyers a) don't know how the law works, and b) don't know how the Internet works. WTF, people? This isn't your private bedroom or local coffeeshop. The shit you say now is being beamed, as I type, to anyone who searches for it. Jesus Christ, these people need to grow up and own their actions, including their support of or active participation in harassment and hateful speech.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:17:26 -0800

Filipovic is an ass For what? She didn't call up his law firm, or make any harassment against him other than defending herself on her own blog and responding to questions in a Post article. If you read it correctly, you would have noticed that the women mentioned on this board were the ones facing undue burden and risking lack of placement in law firms because of the assaults made on them courtesy of Ciolli's digital bathroom wall. Filipovic is an "ass" because she wouldn't take a message board filled with posts about how she was "rapable" and "worthy of a hate-fuck" like the person Ciolli wanted to treat her as?

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:22:34 -0800

Anthony Ciolli, the 3L at Penn Law Have we really become so inured to jargon that they can no longer write "third year law student". /pedant

By: Flashman

Flashman — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:29:13 -0800

Yeah, like WTF?

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:32:28 -0800

Wow... just clicking on one random discussion threads (should I go to Penn or Brown?) and not even scrolling down, I found a half dozen examples of homophobia, antisemitism and misogyny. Charming. I'm of mixed opinions on this, but my thinking is that if Ciolli willingly posted or had an active association with this site, he's a fucking dumbass, and the firm in question had every right to re-evaluate their offer on this basis.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:37:27 -0800

This seems completely justified. If the argument is that he should have all the leeway in the world to do and say what he wants without suffering consequences, then certainly that same right extends to the firm, which can and did not hire him for any reason they choose.

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:48:14 -0800

3L is a fancy way of keeping up mystique to an all too long, all too poorly formulated way of educating lawyers in America. Give it to them, it might even be all they got. Ciolli might even be better off not going to BigLaw. He would have been doing either document review or due dilligence -- stuff that it's hard to build a career from really. He might still be able to get another position in the government or public service and find that his legal education is not exactly "wasted".

By: briank

briank — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:53:44 -0800

So I guess mathowie can kiss that sweet clerkship job at the Supreme Court goodbye, then?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:57:03 -0800

Bwahahaha. Who are these idiots who thought they could be let into the upper echelons of society while publishing all kinds of crazy bullshit.

The Law Blog reviewed correspondence between Ciolli and the firm, and here’s how it went down:

Went down? Has Herbert Kornfeld been reborn as a law blogga'. Wisconsin law prof Ann Althouse wonders why law firms don't care about free speech. LOL wut? This is the woman who rants and raves about "attacks" and "incivility" from the left.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:57:11 -0800

If she was so upset about what people were posting about her, she could post her own rebuttal through the site.

Dear anonymous user 12inchjohnson, Regarding your recent post to this forum dated 4:30am and titled "eat me, bitch", I must respectfully take issue with your characterization of me as a "fucking dyke" and your (if I may say, unsupported) assertion that I represent the class of persons who "need to gag on [your] cock."

Yeah, that should work.

By: cotterpin

cotterpin — Wed, 09 May 2007 05:58:15 -0800

Huzzah. I see this as a continuation of real-world backlash against the kind of garbage that Kathy Sierra went through a month ago. Just because it's "normal" online to have a forum where people can anonymously harass others, doesn't mean the rest of society stands for this. Think about what other groups are known for anonymity and harassment of minorities ... There's a big difference between defending free speech and actively supporting a forum for hate and harassment. The tide is turning, and hopefully it's not going to be normal, and "it's just the internet and that's just how it is" isn't going to fly for real people any longer. Good.

By: sayitwithpie

sayitwithpie — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:03:24 -0800

Good for the law firm. They're under no obligation to hire some asshole law student that they find out is an asshole.

By: cotterpin

cotterpin — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:04:41 -0800

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:05:44 -0800

Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. And being an asshole without moderation is likely to get you unhired from certain law firms. If I worked at that firm, you can bet your ass I'd be asking why someone like that was getting a job offer. They have every right to keep him at arm's length.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:09:27 -0800

AutoAdmit is unquestionably a cesspool, but it's also the only place on the Internet that I know of to get straight answers about law school and early law firm life. All of the other law discussion boards will blow sunshine up your ass, largely because they're over-moderated and "negativity" is discouraged. I personally think what happened to Ciolli was unfortunate, because I don't think people should generally be held accountable for other people's speech. I certainly don't approve of the harassment that went on, either, but I don't think Ciolli ever participated or was in a position to stop it. Cohen certainly was, but he disapproved of moderation beyond what was necessary to keep posters from being scared away (hence the ban on outing).

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:13:47 -0800

Interesting post, thanks lalex. pro: freedom of speech con: complete idiot who is going into the legal profession while 'moderating' (?) a board with comments like this one, which is typical of the reactionary sexist, racist, bullshit. BitchPhD (the last link in lalex's post) is quite articulate about the situation. His job being rescinded is obviously part of his ongoing education. Doesn't look like he's graduated grade school yet. Pity the poor fool, especially if female, who made the mistake of actually hiring this dufus...or, frankly, any of the dufuses on that board.

By: etaoin

etaoin — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:14:43 -0800

I must be getting old. I hope every law firm in America refuses to hire ANY of these assholes posting threats. Whatever happened to the requirement that wannabe lawyers meet some sort of standards of decent conduct? And how long will it be before some of these assholes' writings turn up in court cases or sex-harassment cases at the firms that do hire them?

By: Pogo_Fuzzybutt

Pogo_Fuzzybutt — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:19:25 -0800

AutoAdmit is unquestionably a cesspool, but it's also the only place on the Internet that I know of to get straight answers about law school and early law firm life. All of the other law discussion boards will blow sunshine up your ass, largely because they're over-moderated and "negativity" is discouraged. If law school is like that, I'm glad I chose engineering. But it's not like he's completely out of opportunities. The DOJ will hire any douchebag that puts his associates before common sense. Bonus points for hating minorities, women or gays. Even if he comes from a TTT they'll probably even put him in charge of something important. He's doing a heck of a job!

By: ewkpates

ewkpates — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:20:05 -0800

I propose a new standard for moderation and censorship on the internets. Don't say anything that you would get thrown out of a public library for saying, relative to the section of the library you are in. For example, in the children's section you would be asked to leave the library for certain kinds of speech, and in the adult-books-and-magazines section you would be thrown out for a different kind of speech. If someone makes a resource available to the public, that doesn't mean anyone can use it any way they like. I hope this law student getting kicked to the curb sends a chill through the cruel and stupid everywhere, and those who tolerate them. except me.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:20:29 -0800

All of the other law discussion boards will blow sunshine up your ass, largely because they're over-moderated and "negativity" is discouraged. Well, hopefully this incident will help law discussion board communities come up with some happier middle ground between "law school bitches" and a sphincter full of smoke.

By: anotherpanacea

anotherpanacea — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:21:08 -0800

Look, there's a clear logical exclusion for personal insults and libel. What do personal attacks on private individuals add to the marketplace of ideas? How do they help us determine just policies or prevent bad leaders from gaining positions of importance? Free speech isn't an excuse to wipe your shit all over regular folk. That's not what it's for.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:22:55 -0800

Wisconsin law prof Ann Althouse wonders why law firms don't care about free speech. Wisconsin law prof Ann Althouse wrote a series of posts about Filipovic's fellow feminist blogger Jessica Valenti where she accused her of being a whore for attending a meeting with Bill Clinton while having breasts. She has about as much credibility on feminist issues and social behavior as Andrew Dice Clay. Free speech without moderation is essential to the free exchange of ideas on the web. Yes, I too would lament the loss of such august advances in free exchange of ideas like "I want to hate fuck a feminist" and "I have it on good authority that Jill F has rape fantasies" that have truly contributed to the development of the legal profession. I missed the part of the Constitution that said free speech includes law firms being obligated to hire you, but then I'm clearly not as well-versed in the legal profession as the future Daniel Websters up there.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:28:08 -0800

Ciolli isn't being punished for the actions of others - he's being punished for his own. It was his choice to maintain an affiliation with and a leadership role in a message board associated with racist, sexist, and threatening material. He was beyond stupid for not thinking in advance about the effect his association with AA might have on his reputation and his career. I probably wouldn't hire anyone who exhibited such poor judgment either, for that reason alone. There are cases where bloggers have been unfairly targeted by employers. This ain't one.

By: fluffycreature

fluffycreature — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:30:47 -0800

1. Is it me or do law students need to understand Freedom of Speech - which is government restricted speech is not permitted. From the sounds of it, some messages were culled but in general they allowed a rabid environment of discussion which is not representative of a law culture, and yet they wish to still be treated as part of the law culture. Not a realistic or adult attitude. 2. How does this ruin his career? He can get another job - perhaps not as glorious as he might have liked considering his inflated self perception. Besides the history of the message board and what it represents - I am further concerned about his attitude of not taking responsibility for his role in the site. As the law firm stated, they have given him repeated attempts to refute the information. Consider the content of the site, even if his role was minimal, his further attitude of not accepting his role and not engaging with the firm to hire him represents a childishness that would send off alarm bells if I was hiring him. Add the content into the equation and I would take it back as well. Good for the law firm.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:32:12 -0800

The content of AutoAdmit does not surprise me at all. Law school students are some of the most abhorrent immature assholes I have ever met. You could not find a worse group of people, if your life depended on it, than a law school class. As an example, in my Criminal Law class we were covering rape, and the general consensus was that "If a girl is out at the bars at 3am, what does she think is going to happen?". The funny thing is, lawyers are, for the most part, all right. Some are dicks sure, but they mostly just are normal people with families and who try to be good people. I don't know what happens in between law school and lawyerdom, but it is astounding. I remember sitting in my 1L class (it may be a stupid term, but I have been brainwashed, I can call it nothing else) thinking "Wow. If a fire burned down this building and killed everyone in here, it would actually make the world a better place." I should say that the thought never entered my head of starting a fire, nor have I ever done any violence to anyone, nor would I. I hardly have to mention that being a law school student was a miserable experience for me, as I don't enjoy the company of terrible people, but being a lawyer is pretty cool. Anyway, I imagine that it must be the environment of law school that, at least partially, contributes to making law school students such awful human beings, so I suppose the answer to the problem lies in totally revamping legal education. More on topic, good for this law firm. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

By: T.D. Strange

T.D. Strange — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:33:04 -0800

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:34:40 -0800

He should come over here. We could use more whining law students.

By: illovich

illovich — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:35:07 -0800

Most of what I think has been said already, but additionally I'd like to point out that lawyers especially have to worry about activities and people that they publicly associate with because awful professional public perception aside, the lawyers I know and have read tend to be on the upstanding, admirable side -- not because of their money making abilities, but because they tend to have a very strong sense of ethics and of community responsibility (for example, my understanding is they take pro bono and other community work very seriously). So really, should this guy be surprised that he creates a hangout for scumbags and then a law firm wants nothing to do with him? It's sort of like the guy who sleeps with all his friend's wives and thenwonders why he didn't get invited to the barbecue. "It must be because they hate my commitment to FREEDOM!"

By: T.D. Strange

T.D. Strange — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:38:02 -0800

...And I'm glad I didn't goto the above law school. I like probably 70% of my 1L class, who are completely normal. Your school must've sucked.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:38:54 -0800

Ciolli isn't being punished for the actions of others - he's being punished for his own. It was his choice to maintain an affiliation with and a leadership role in a message board associated with racist, sexist, and threatening material. Yeah, and that's why even though I feel bad for him, I can't fault the firm. AutoAdmit has really gone downhill in the last few months (after a good run of several years), and he didn't get out quickly enough. I guess he was too vested in the place, or something.

By: lalex

lalex — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:41:05 -0800

Ciollo discusses AutoAdmit's moderation policies and his level of control over the threads in the comment section of this post.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:44:15 -0800

Mr. Ciolli. Here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.

By: Alizaria

Alizaria — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:45:07 -0800

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:46:56 -0800

I certainly don't approve of the harassment that went on, either, but I don't think Ciolli ever participated or was in a position to stop it. Cohen certainly was, but he disapproved of moderation beyond what was necessary to keep posters from being scared away (hence the ban on outing). posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:09 AM on May 9 [+] This is the revisionist history Ciolli and his minions are trying to spread around the internet. Ciolli had an active role in the site and was actually an equity owner until March 2007, when the Washington Post article was published and he "resigned." Ciolli may not have himself had his finger on the moderation button, but there's no question that he was a leader and owner of the site at all the relevant times. I've also heard he made many distasteful postings on the site himself, but I can't confirm that because I don't want to look at the site.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:48:48 -0800

Free speech can still have consequences, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from descisions made by private actors. Don't they teach that in Constitutional Law at UPENN? I thought it was a good law school or something? I think it's a mistake to equate free speech with speech protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't circumscribe the outer limit of what freedom of expression should entail. It merely protects certain expression from government action. Of course Ciolli's firm was legally justified in rescinding their offer of employment. That's not at issue. The question is whether a world in which employers rescind offers based on people's association with disapproved speech is better than one in which they don't.

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:49:23 -0800

Prof. Althouse: Why don't you take this opportunity to give your own account of the Valenti incident?

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:51:54 -0800

This is the revisionist history Ciolli and his minions are trying to spread around the internet. Ciolli had an active role in the site and was actually an equity owner until March 2007, when the Washington Post article was published and he "resigned." I don't think this is accurate. I used to read the board, and there was never any indication that Ciolli could unilaterally set moderation policy, and it was always clear that Cohen wasn't going to allow moderation based on the offensiveness of the content.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:52:15 -0800

I'd like to say that XQUZYPHYR just wrote a despicable lie about me Watch out XQUZYPHYR, you've reminded Althouse of the Jessica Valenti BREAST CONTROVERSY!

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:52:43 -0800

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:53:11 -0800

The question is whether a world in which employers rescind offers based on people's association with disapproved speech is better than one in which they don't. Would you hire a prospective elementary school teacher who you knew hung around underage chat rooms? In that situation, it's just expression, not behavior.

By: Alizaria

Alizaria — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:54:04 -0800

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:56:23 -0800

While Althouse may not have used the exact phrase mentioned here (although I think that any intelligent reader would not have read XQUZYPHYR's comment as a literal quotation), here's a sample of what she did write, as quoted at Feministing:

Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible? It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts. Jessica should have worn a beret. Blue dress would have been good too. Jessica's breasts are definitely a distraction… … Jessica looks like Paula Jones (check her profile photo: she does)… Look closely at that picture and try to adopt the posture Jessica's in. I did. It's not natural…

By: pax digita

pax digita — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:57:03 -0800

alizaria/Dr. Althouse, are you aware of MeTa?

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:57:34 -0800

I don't think this is accurate. I used to read the board, and there was never any indication that Ciolli could unilaterally set moderation policy, and it was always clear that Cohen wasn't going to allow moderation based on the offensiveness of the content. posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:51 AM on May 9 [+] Take a look at the comments by Ciolli in this blog. He makes it clear that he was an owner of the site until March 2007. It's totally irrelevant that Cohen supposedly controlled the moderation policies -- as a partner in the venture, Ciolli was tacitly approving of Cohen's conduct.

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:00:01 -0800

Footnote: It would hijack this thread to explain all that, but I see what I assume is your point, that more speech is the cure. It's the cure I believe in too. If you are actually interested in my explanation, why don't you watch me explain it to Bob Wright on BloggingheadsTV. posted by Alizaria at 9:54 AM on May 9 [+] [!] No, what I mean is that if you're going to throw around accusations about posters on this site, you need to back it up. I agree with pax that you should take it to Metatalk if you're concerned.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:01:24 -0800

as almost always, what XQUZ, madamjujujive and Mr. Pileon said.

By: staggernation

staggernation — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:02:10 -0800

in the adult-books-and-magazines section What library do you go to?

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:02:27 -0800

Would you hire a prospective elementary school teacher who you knew hung around underage chat rooms? In that situation, it's just expression, not behavior. Let me turn your question around. Why do you think someone would hesitate to hire this person? It has nothing to do with one's approval or disapproval of whatever they were saying in the chat room, or what other people were saying (in fact, you didn't even tell me what was being said in the hypo)--no, the question is whether they're going to sexually abuse the kids. If Ciolli's law firm had some reasonable and articulable grounds to think he would be bad at the job, then you're right, this isn't a speech issue. It's not clear that's the case, though.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:04:13 -0800

Take a look at the comments by Ciolli in this blog. He makes it clear that he was an owner of the site until March 2007. It's totally irrelevant that Cohen supposedly controlled the moderation policies -- as a partner in the venture, Ciolli was tacitly approving of Cohen's conduct. I approve of Cohen's conduct too. Please don't tell my employer, though, because I don't want to get fired because of what I do and don't approve of.

By: NekulturnY

NekulturnY — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:04:17 -0800

"If anything, my presence greatly reduced hurt, since when Jarret did make a decision to delete certain types of posts (e.g. posts that violate the anti-outing policy) I was around to remove them when he wasn't around to do it himself." Says Ciolli himself in the discussion in the link provided by lalex. So he did have moderating powers at AutoAdmit, and he chose to use them only to delete "posts that violate(d) the anti-outing policy". Translation: when anonymous stalkers were 'outed', he put on his bat costume and fought evil. Thereby "greatly reducing the hurt". Right. If he had equity and de facto modding powers, what stopped him from using them? The word of an insurance agent working "60 - 80 hours a week" (also from his discussion in same link)? Or was the word of Mr. Cohen more of a 'befehl'? It all sounds a bit weak to me. Poor Anthony Ciolli. May he have a rich and rewarding life full of entitlement.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:06:27 -0800

Another kid dealing with the legal system today: This kid made the huge mistake of throwing an egg and it was turned into him being accused of throwing a bomb.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:06:37 -0800

Well, I actually am Wisconsin lawpro Ann Althouse (stuck here with an old nickname) and I'd like to say that XQUZYPHYR just wrote a despicable lie about me: "Wisconsin law prof Ann Althouse wrote a series of posts about Filipovic's fellow feminist blogger Jessica Valenti where she accused her of being a whore for attending a meeting with Bill Clinton while having breasts." So, I hope all you people who are opposed to the unmoderated comments on AutoAdmit will be suitably outraged and figure out what ought to be done about that. I'm pretty sick of the way that meme about me has infected the internet, and I can't figure out what to do about it other than to hope that people learn that much of what people write is trash. But if you think something more forcible should be done, what is it and will you do it to XQUZYPHYR? posted by Alizaria at 6:45 AM on May 9 Well, here's what you said: "Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?" "It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts." "Jessica should have worn a beret. Blue dress would have been good too." "Jessica's breasts are definitely a distraction…" "… Jessica looks like Paula Jones (check her profile photo: she does)…" "Look closely at that picture and try to adopt the posture Jessica's in. I did. It's not natural…" So while you managed to not actually use the word "whore" (bravo!), your obsession with some woman's boobs and a three-quarter pose makes you sound positively fucking mental. If I point out that you're a nasty, cold-hearted, evil, callow, hideous inhuman waste of skin, is it okay because I didn't use the word "bitch"?

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:07:09 -0800

The only news here is that the law firm decided to go this way. I went to Big Law at first, and one of my peers turned out to have been involved in a fraudulent mark scandal that I had heard about. I was shocked to see her there, but apparently the firm decided that it was too risky to rescind the offer at that stage of hiring. Thing is, in law, reputation is nearly everything. The firm had its own reputation to protect. (I think they eventually paid her to go away). Good decision I think here. And Ciolli should count himself lucky. Is there any Bar association in N.A. without a good citizen clause? oh, on preview: Anyway, I imagine that it must be the environment of law school that, at least partially, contributes to making law school students such awful human beings Took the GRE and LSAT around the same time. Wander in to the LSAT, see all these friendly looking strangers. Strike up a few conversations, work out the jitters. Nice group of people, from diverse programs -- anthro, psych, socio, philosophy. Then we settle down to the test. Walk into the LSAT about a week later. Candidates all eyes-forward, hardly any speaking. Suspicious glances, frowns, occasional glares. Atmosphere 100% different. So while I'm sure you're partly right about the law school gauntlet, I think it attracts a different kind, too. Lots of good people, but it's also one of the few careers I can think of where being an asshole can actually be spun as virtue.

By: lalex

lalex — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:07:45 -0800

Whoa, just came back to this thread. Is that really Althouse?

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:12:54 -0800

I approve of Cohen's conduct too. Please don't tell my employer, though, because I don't want to get fired because of what I do and don't approve of. posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:04 AM on May 9 [+] [!] Come on. Cohen and Ciolli had a business together as partners. Part of the business plan was to invite or allow very offensive posts on their website. Only Cohen had the power to moderate. Ciolli does not get a free pass because this particular function was allocated to his business partner rather than himself. I hate anaologies, but: It's as if your business partner were embezzeling from the company's investors with your full knowledge, but you tried to claim immunity because only he had control of the bank accounts.

By: NekulturnY

NekulturnY — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:14:37 -0800

Footnote, I quoted Ciolli above as stating that he did have the power to moderate.

By: deanc

deanc — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:14:48 -0800

they tend to have a very strong sense of ethics and of community responsibility (for example, my understanding is they take pro bono and other community work very seriously). I have to say that this is true, as far as I can tell. I have a friend who's a corporate lawyer and an active member of the right-wing Federalist Society-- basically every stereotype of the evil conservative that liberal intellectuals like me have. Yet at the same time she did pro-bono work to prevent a poor guy on disability from being evicted from his apartment, a move of such bleeding-hearted community service that would make my non-lawyer conservative relatives launch into a tirade about the unfairness of such handouts and corruption of the legal system. Corporate lawyers aren't all a bunch of sleazeballs (though I would advise those wishing to make a positive contribution to society to look elsewhere). At least the young ones are just there because they need to pay off their law school loans. I presume that the reason that law students are such jerks is because they show up to law school with such a sense of entitlement and fantasies that they'll be law partners making millions before they're 40. Once they experience the grind of the early years of lawyer life, have their master-of-the-universe dreams knocked out of them, and figure out what they want to do with their careers, they probably learn a little more humility.

By: Dr. Zira

Dr. Zira — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:15:27 -0800

AutoAdmit is unquestionably a cesspool, but it's also the only place on the Internet that I know of to get straight answers about law school and early law firm life You were able to find straight answers? I found the amount of time required to sort through all of the racist/sexist noise a zero sum game, when I could go to Law School Discussion or the Non-Trad LS boards and find the same information in much less time. Law school students are some of the most abhorrent immature assholes I have ever met. You could not find a worse group of people, if your life depended on it, than a law school class. The summer before my 1L year, I had fully braced myself to deal with "abhorrent immature assholes." That has not been my experience. Although there may be some behavior typical of the lack of life experience that comes with being one's early twenties, I am proud of my classmates and look forward to working with them as professionals in the field. Then again, my law school is hardly one of the elite T-14 that seems to dominate the thinking on AutoAdmit, so maybe the phenomenon you describe is a product of an elitist mindset. Even so, without a broader range of evidence, I would hesitate to make such a broad sweeping generalization of law students based upon one internet website's foul dump into the marketplace of ideas.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:17:03 -0800

But if you think something more forcible should be done, what is it and will you do it to XQUZYPHYR? OK, I promise I won't hire them to work at any future law firm I happen to own. Does that work for you?

By: footnote

footnote — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:17:22 -0800

Footnote, I quoted Ciolli above as stating that he did have the power to moderate. posted by NekulturnY at 10:14 AM on May 9 [+] [!] Yeah, I know -- I'm just trying to address Ciolli's revisionist account, which makes no sense even if it is true!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:17:48 -0800

If Ciolli's law firm had some reasonable and articulable grounds to think he would be bad at the job, then you're right, this isn't a speech issue. It's not clear that's the case, though. The question is will the prospective employee behave in a manner that creates liability for the company, be that, for example, through sexual or racial harrassment, given that this applicant either espouses those views or is friendly to them through his current actions as a moderator of a website where such views are expressed. Likewise, a school superintendent will probably pass on hiring an applicant who is associated with pedophiliac expression, to avoid the potential for children getting sexually molested (as well as liability to the school district — actually, that is probably the primary motivation these days). I get your point that it seems like a grey area. But in a marketplace of ideas, employers are free to turn down applicants who do not meet unprotected criteria. That is, while you can't turn down an applicant on the basis of age, race or gender, you can turn down someone for not being qualified for the job, or who will put your organization at risk of being sued because of behavior. Those are the criteria being used here, I believe.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:19:35 -0800

I read Prof. Althouse's blog entry where she defends herself from that "despicable lie." I also looked at what she calls a "breastblog," the one that XQUZYPHYR linked to. Professor, you're full of it. You don't actually call her a "whore," but what's so much less offensive about this: "... her attendence at the luncheon dressed in the guise of Monica Lewinsky"? On the despicability scale, you're pushing the needle pretty high.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:20:40 -0800

If Ciolli's law firm had some reasonable and articulable grounds to think he would be bad at the job, then you're right, this isn't a speech issue. It's not clear that's the case, though. Jobs like this require a certain demeanor outside of work as well as inside. You can't be a "prestigious" law firm if you hire notorious assholes, and so he would be, by definition, bad at his job.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:24:26 -0800

You were able to find straight answers? I found the amount of time required to sort through all of the racist/sexist noise a zero sum game, when I could go to Law School Discussion or the Non-Trad LS boards and find the same information in much less time. The site has basically imploded in the last few months. In its heyday, though, I found it much more useful than LSD. I attended a T14, and everyone was pretty decent. I don't know where that person upthread was coming from.

By: Alizaria

Alizaria — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:24:42 -0800

Kirth: All I can say is read the whole thing in context and try to have a sense of humor while you're doing it. Someone up there quotes me as saying "Jessica's breasts are definitely a distraction," but here's the whole quote int context: "The real sticking point for the people who are pissed at me is that they love Clinton and they know that what this post and the other one were really about was him. Jessica's breasts are definitely a distraction, but personally I'm not distracted. This is about Clinton and the abject support women have given him." Deal with it. Yeah, I'm just terrible. That's so much easier than facing up to the real problem, which is how feminists sold out to Democratic Party interests.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:26:36 -0800

"[If]you moderate, edit, or prune comments on your online forum -- or blog -- in any way at all then you stop being able to defend yourself as a common carrier and become a publisher who is, indeed, liable for the content that they publish." this is a common line of reasoning on the internet ... there's just one problem with it - the courts have yet to establish that the "common carrier" defense applies to the internet ... in fact, some isp's have argued against it it's a complicated, thorny question and a blanket "you have common carrier status and could lose it" is not accurate

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:26:40 -0800

Watch out XQUZYPHYR, you've reminded Althouse of the Jessica Valenti BREAST CONTROVERSY! THIS IS THE GREATEST MOMENT OF MY LIFE EVAR.

By: Aloysius Bear

Aloysius Bear — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:26:41 -0800

AutoAdmit, "The most prestigious college discussion board in the world". It's like how countries with 'democratic' in their name tend to be anything but. If you have to describe yourself as prestigious, you probably aren't. Not to mention the absurdity of a message board being "prestigious".

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:27:11 -0800

I must say, this thread which is likely to become a bit of an epic, gladdens my heart for the most part. Yay team. My favourite snip (and I've actually read everything linked here) is the law professor stating that if they had been a commenter at AA they would be 'sweating bullets' about now - forget where that came from. What would gladden my heart even more would be for one of the slandered women to sue AA and subpoena for disclosure of identifying details of the fuckwad sexual violence advocates. Perhaps that might have some measure of moderating influence on behaviour.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:28:14 -0800

you know, it must be depressing as hell to know that you're going to be best remembered by what you said about someone else's breasts

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:31:08 -0800

I presume that the reason that law students are such jerks is because they show up to law school with such a sense of entitlement and fantasies that they'll be law partners making millions before they're 40. Eh... Not to deflate your, ah, enthusiasm, but a good chunk of my classmates came from fairly wealthy/influential backgrounds, so the sense of privilege in some cases came with, but as to partners making millions... the average age of my class was something like 26. If you're at a firm for 14 years and you're not a partner, you're never gonna be. (if you haven't left by 8, time to go; you're a grinder) And yeah, most of my friends are now looking elsewhere. Looking with a couple of houses earning rent to soften the blow. Maybe I should rent off one of them.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:36:18 -0800

My mom taught me not to talk about people's breasts, especially in public. I pretty much hold to that.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:36:34 -0800

I attended a T14, and everyone was pretty decent. I don't know where that person upthread was coming from. posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:24 AM on May 9 [+] [!] If I am the person upthread that you are referring to, I had never heard the term T14 until this thread, and my state only had one law school when I was choosing a school, and so I went there, so my experience may have been different from other people's.

By: deanc

deanc — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:38:44 -0800

a good chunk of my classmates came from fairly wealthy/influential backgrounds Hm. I always pictured law & medicine were as the middle-class man's way to getting rich and had this fantasy that the truly wealthy/influential ended up in investment banking or careers where one didn't have to debase oneself by rubbing shoulders with people going to graduate school as a means of social advancement, except maybe for an MBA which would be spent mostly on local golf-courses. And I used "40" because people picturing themselves making millions before the age of 30 just sounded tacky.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:39:23 -0800

More AutoAdmit/Althouse fun: one, two, three.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:41:02 -0800

I'm pretty sick of the way that meme about me has infected the internet, and I can't figure out what to do about it other than to hope that people learn that much of what people write is trash. Ann, while you're here, I'd like to point out that this is not the first website where I've seen you jump in to scream about how horrible it is people are mentioning the ludicrous and unfair attack you made on Valenti. Your problem here is that when you do this, everyone very quickly finds the overwhelming evidence that you're full of horseshit. I'm no legal expert, but since you seem to be desperate to hide your activities, here's some free advice on how the internet works: when you keep running into message boards whining, for example, "will you all stop talking about how I killed that hobo," odds are Google will very shortly experience an uptick in the search phrase "Althouse hobo murder." Are we learning yet?

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:42:12 -0800

All I can say is read the whole thing in context and try to have a sense of humor while you're doing it. Oh, I always have that. So, you're saying that: A. It was all in good fun - just a lot of kidding, really. B. It was about Clinton and how the feminist movement sold out to the Democrats' agenda. On A, you need to work on your delivery. And get some better material. Much better. As for B, I'll take your word for it that those were your motivations. It doesn't receive that way at all. It comes across as your being unable to let go of Bill Clinton's private life, as he was living it eight years ago. To demonstrate how very important that is, you use an innocent bystander who happened to be wearing a top that revealed the fact that she has breasts, and intimated that she was somehow being flirtatious. Which she was not, to my objective (but highly sensitive, believe me) eye. Do you really not see how doing that, and defending doing it with Lewinsky references, is wrong?

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:43:35 -0800

If you have to describe yourself as prestigious, you probably aren't. Not to mention the absurdity of a message board being "prestigious". You're right, that is absurd. It's almost as though the slogan were chosen ironically.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:46:05 -0800

And on posting, MarshallPoe's got it: "My mom taught me not to talk about people's breasts, especially in public. I pretty much hold to that." That these overentitled law school brats find it not only appropriate but amusing to post rape threats and everything else you can think of about their fellow classmates explains a whole lot about why women sometimes choose the mommy track instead of shooting for partner. Having worked for one of the big three as a financial advisor (as one of only 3 women in an office of 55 brokers) I saw all kinds of ultra-juvenile behavior -- and always from the younger guys, never from the older ones who were considerably more classy, albeit obsessed with high school football. This kid wouldn't have gotten past the background check there, either. And even if he had, he probably would've gotten fired like my officemate did, for schtupping our (married) secretary on his desk after hours. No big loss.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:48:06 -0800

It would be great if the firm that rescinded the job offer to Ciolli instead offered that position one of the women that had been targeted and smeared on AA.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:50:45 -0800

I always pictured law & medicine were as the middle-class man's way to getting rich and had this fantasy that the truly wealthy/influential ended up in investment banking or careers where one didn't have to debase oneself by rubbing shoulders with people going to graduate school as a means of social advancement, except maybe for an MBA which would be spent mostly on local golf-courses. Maybe medicine is like that. I thought my law school would be of mixed ethnicities and social classes but it turned out to be full of white middle-to-upper class people. I was actually rather shocked. Slightly more women to men, though. And rather more diverse personalities, interests, and experiences than I expected, happily. And I used "40" because people picturing themselves making millions before the age of 30 just sounded tacky. Wait, you're talking USD, right? Then I suppose. Though it might startle you as to what it costs to buy into a partnership in the first place. I had no idea you even had to. Oh and golf, don't get me started. Ugh.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:50:51 -0800

Good point MJV. And don't worry, this dude will get a job.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:53:44 -0800

Yeah, Mister_A, probably for some "men's rights" law firm... ;)

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:56:11 -0800

From what I gather (from a very superficial reading, I am not that concerned about events) the story is 1. law firm chooses not to hire somebody and that's perfectly legitimate, maybe sad for the unlucky (?) one , but it's worth a who cares. Now let' see the merit of their choice 2. as above, because of his behing somehow implicated in a blog uhmm...yeah. Make sense...NOT. I could understand a law firm (or any firm) expelling an associate (yeah, like Walmart only more glamorous) because of his/her newfound fame (deserved or not) of being a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat ..whatever. And I would restrict this to event that have some mediatic impact or extremely well know proved events in a closed community...something making clamor like, for instance, being caught using a penis pump during a judgement (nothing wrong with illusions per se , except that people still clamor about unusual practices) My take is that somebody with some power got hurt somehow and decided to kick some ass in retribution ; the image concern is possible and even plausibile, but not realistic. On a tangent: viva the internet relative anonymity ! Cause I can write you all are a bunch of asshole for the trill of it :) without being sued and without enriching selectively litigious lawyers.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:00:58 -0800

MetaFilter: a bunch of asshole for the trill of it :)

By: NekulturnY

NekulturnY — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:04:23 -0800

Metafilter: from what I gather (from a very superficial reading, I am not that concerned about events) the story is...

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:05:26 -0800

...instead offered that position one of the women that had been targeted and smeared on AA. Well madamjujujive, that would be confusing self-interest with humanity. Let's be real: the law firm didn't pull back the offer on the basis of decency. It was all self-interest. It's always self-interest with these people. They deserve NONE of the kudos they are getting in this thread.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:09:23 -0800

Right, TBM. That's why philanthropic positions in law have to fight off hundreds of candidates for every position. Because these people are all about X. Do tell about other fields of endeavour. I can't wait to hear what all teachers are about or what all engineers want of the world.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:10:42 -0800

From what I gather (from a very superficial reading, I am not that concerned about events) My take is that somebody with some power got hurt somehow and decided to kick some ass in retribution ; the image concern is possible and even plausibile, but not realistic. Yes, because here at the Bitter-Girl Law Firm, LLC, we think it's a great idea to hire some asshat who believes posting rape threats about his fellow law students is supermega-OK! The firm in question was covering their ass, no doubt about it. What if the women start suing? Do you really want one of your first year associates tied up in litigation that doesn't bring in billable hours for the firm? It wasn't that someone in power got hurt and decided to strike back, it's that some women who were in a position of very little power (being unable to respond to these jerks appropriately and even losing their own job offers as a result of Auto Admit's postings) got some PR-light on the situation and the AA's own actions turned around and bit them in the ass.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:15:15 -0800

They deserve NONE of the kudos they are getting in this thread. Not even a cookie? Pish and tosh! Really, I don't so much care why people do the right thing, so long as they do the right thing.

By: felix grundy

felix grundy — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:18:27 -0800

This was in one of bitter-girl.com's Pandagon links, but I don't think it's been linked to directly: Hi, I'm Jill, and scummy law school sleazebags have gone after me, too.

By: Dr. Zira

Dr. Zira — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:30:59 -0800

This was in one of bitter-girl.com's Pandagon links, but I don't think it's been linked to directly: Hi, I'm Jill, and scummy law school sleazebags have gone after me, too. From one of the comments in the above linked blog post: "Bad guys (and/or girls) will find their own level, a sort of Mos Eisley hive of scum and villainy where anonymity is key to the quasi-legal or outright illegal things they do." Outstanding metaphor. Thanks for posting that link.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:34:23 -0800

Ok, I can't resist, it's just too easy... Metafilter: a sort of Mos Eisley hive of scum and villainy where anonymity is key

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:38:14 -0800

some women who were in a position of very little power (being unable to respond to these jerks appropriately and even losing their own job offers as a result of Auto Admit's postings) Well if she really felt threatened, then she probably had reason to believe the threat was very plausibile , not just a bunch of jerks on the net. I find it hard to believe a woman feels threatened by some asshole on the net, UNLESS the woman knows the person and knows the person knows enough about her or is stalking her. I am not saying she knee jerk reacted, but I can't exclude it either. Additionally, if there is an actual threat then I would be concerned about her safety and phone police or find help from friends and relatives, whereas "shining pr-light" seems retaliation for (even if well deserved) retaliation shake.

By: dios

dios — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:39:30 -0800

Reason #125243 to remain anonymous on the internet.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:39:46 -0800

Free speech can still have consequences, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from descisions made by private actors. Don't they teach that in Constitutional Law at UPENN? "The comments on the WSJ blog post are full of whining about how the First Amendment is being violated, except of course the First Amendment doesn't apply to private actors and the government isn't involved in the slightest here. [My correspondent writes that he/she is] a little ashamed that my fellow lawyers and law students misunderstood Constitutional Law so fundamentally. This is the power of the market in all its glory, nothing more and nothing less. Law firms will not risk their ability to attract valuable clients on a 23-year-old who endorses violently homophobic, racist, and sexist threats. I think the law firm was absolutely in the right here."^*

By: etaoin

etaoin — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:46:35 -0800

<>I find it hard to believe a woman feels threatened by some asshole on the net, UNLESS the woman knows the person and knows the person knows enough about her or is stalking her. I am not saying she knee jerk reacted, but I can't exclude it either. Jesus, why not? On a journalism forum I used to be associated with, we had an increasingly angry guy accusing first me and then others of targeting him and then of committing crimes; he posted my address, announced he was going to come to our convention and have it out with me, etc. Our executive committee wound up adding security at the hotel to watch out for him but he apparently never showed up. I think internet threats should be taken very seriously.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:48:40 -0800

I find it hard to believe a woman feels threatened by some asshole on the net, UNLESS the woman knows the person and knows the person knows enough about her or is stalking her. I am not saying she knee jerk reacted, but I can't exclude it either. They were posting photos of their fellow, female law students at the gym, walking around campus, etc from their camera phones!! How in the hell is that NOT stalking?! This isn't just me writing "elpapacito is a total dickwad and I'd like to crush his throat with a hammer" on MeFi (not that I would -- sheesh! just an example here!), because I don't know you, you don't know me and we've got a big old ocean between us. This is physical stalking and harassment of actual fellow students, not to mention the overall trash-talking about female bloggers and other people they may or may not actually know in real life. This is posting lies about women which have actually prevented *them* from getting jobs. It's not only a potential physical threat, it's an emotional and financial threat, too. How dare these uppity women at Yale and elsewhere think their perfect grades and internships entitle them to a job after law school? Why, I never! We better take them down a peg.

By: Joey Buttafoucault

Joey Buttafoucault — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:50:51 -0800

That's so much easier than facing up to the real problem, which is how feminists sold out to Democratic Party interests. So you redressed this grievance by demeaning the (female) perpetrators based on the way they used their bodies in ways that you didn't approve of? ...! Do you even understand what feminism is?

By: trondant

trondant — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:52:54 -0800

Metafilter: Althouse hobo murder

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:07:59 -0800

I think internet threats should be taken very seriously.

Well, these with divulgation of one's whereabouts I would take seriously, not every thread for any reason. That's clear evidence one isn't just dealing with another vociferous idiot.

They were posting photos of their fellow, female law students at the gym, walking around campus, etc from their camera phones!! How in the hell is that NOT stalking?!

Now that's interesting, definitely creepy and again more evidence they know where she is. If we combine it with the following : overall trash-talking about female bloggers and other people they may or may not actually know in real life imho , that is an element that makes the threat more plasubile, but taken alone it's just sexist "trash" deserving rational comebacks, even discussion , but simple emotive reaction would be like taking a troll's bait, it only makes the troll happy. This is posting lies about women which have actually prevented *them* from getting jobs. If the employer believes what is written on a site or , similarly, everyday vitriol gossip then we have one foolish employer. One could argue that the mere presence of slander could make somebody suspicious about its veracity and therefore damage the slandered, but that's pure speculation as the employer may as well have discarded that information as inaccurate and not hired X , because somebody else made a better impression. Why, I never! We better take them down a peg. Gossip, gossip gossip. It's probably a lot easier to identify this behavior for what it is, pure sensation, pure slander. I guess lawyers should be among the first to see-truth this kind of bullshit and dissmiss it for what its worth.

By: MapGuy

MapGuy — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:09:12 -0800

I Googled Autoadmit hotties…. Old Gypsy woman spoke to me. Lips stained red from a bottle of wine. What was... I seem to be.... driven to... Your honor I rest my case.

By: yeloson

yeloson — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:10:37 -0800

Um, yeah. So let me guess, you wouldn't be concerned if folks posted up your address and pictures of you online? How about your children? See, the problem is, even if the person posting the stuff is too much of a coward to do anything, online, it's always one click away from someone crazy enough who will.

By: pax digita

pax digita — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:11:12 -0800

Reason #125243 to remain anonymous on the internet. Of course, following the Golden Rule is always in fashion, too. Not as much fun, true, but it's easier to look at yourself in the mirror the next day.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:12:53 -0800

Reason #125243 to remain anonymous on the internet. Wow. I mean, holy shit. Really. This is about how a bunch of anonymous site posters took advantage of anonymity to abuse and harass women, and your conclusion is that the problem here was the owner of the site not being anonymous as well? I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a coherent way one could have completely missed the point of this story more. I am truly in awe.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:13:06 -0800

Mr. Ciolli. Here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer. "You teach yourself the law, but I train your mind. You come in here with skull full of mush and you leave thinking liking a lawyer."

By: Dr. Zira

Dr. Zira — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:15:32 -0800

Here's a brief rundown on 1st Amendment fighting words doctrine.

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:16:48 -0800

Reason #125243 to remain anonymous on the internet. Funny, the lesson I took away from this was: Reason #125243 to not act like a cock in public.

By: dios

dios — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:18:40 -0800

Of course, following the Golden Rule is always in fashion, too. Not as much fun, true, but it's easier to look at yourself in the mirror the next day. posted by pax digita at 11:11 AM on May 9[ I'm not sure what you mean by that as a retort to my comment. Or maybe I wasn't specific enough with my comment. The reason I was referring to is that in the professional world, employers do background searches on you. And it only takes a handful of bad actors or vindictive pricks to cause a problem. This guy got in trouble because he was associated with something that other people botched up. If his involvement with AutoAdmit had been anonymous, then the actions of the other people wouldn't have effected him at all. One has to be careful because even if one acts as a saint, there are other people out there whose actions one does not control who can cause negative attention for one. Now if you are working at a computer help desk, having your name attached to something controversial may not be a big deal. But if you are in the professional world, you don't want your name attached to anything controversial because it can only have negative consequences.

By: bruce

bruce — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:19:59 -0800

what a pussy. three years wasted because one firm didn't like him? some time i'll tell you how many firms didn't like me! i ended up starting my own.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:21:00 -0800

but that's pure speculation as the employer may as well have discarded that information as inaccurate and not hired X , because somebody else made a better impression. From here:

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. [...] 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...

Yes, because Phi Beta Kappa Yalies are such a hiring liability, and make such bad impressions in interviews. Damn. How am I not getting my point across here? Getting linked to hobo murders or whatever other crazy-assed stuff someone might post about you online is a great way to scare an employer off, particularly a law firm who wants to shy away from hiring potentially controversial associates. This isn't the MySpace pirate-drinking-photo episode where you could argue her own actions caused the end result.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:33 -0800

Now if you are working at a computer help desk, having your name attached to something controversial may not be a big deal. cold-blooded.

By: MapGuy

MapGuy — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:25:41 -0800

Witch is to say I Googled Autoadmit hotties…. Old Gypsy woman spoke to me. Lips stained red from a bottle of wine. What was... I seem to be.... driven to... Your honor I rest my case.

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:25:42 -0800

elpapacito, do you always engage in arguments with such energy after admitting that you are ignorant about the facts under discussion?

By: felix grundy

felix grundy — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 -0800

warning: misogyny ahead. Extreme misogyny ahead. from another Feministe post about AutoAdmit: Am I a thin-skinned whiner for thinking those posts are beyond the pale? How about if several people wrote the following things about you, or your sister, wife, daughter or friend: “I want to brutally rape that Jill slut” “I’m 98% sure that she should be raped (if only in Internet Land)” “Official Jill Filipovic RAPE Thread” These are just the first three of a long list; I had copied the whole list but I couldn't quite stomach having my name that close to the festering lot of it. These aren't minor moderation issues, or difficult questions about whether the board is getting too fractious. If the board is being moderated at all, these topics have no place in the discussion.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:29:50 -0800

peacay: nah only when I don't know if the source(s) are reliable , don't want to spend energy collecting facts and think there could be a debate potential..it's not about the facts, it's about how we think about them.

By: spitbull

spitbull — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:30:03 -0800

BitchPhD has the best answer to all the "but, but, what about free speech" whiners . . . live by the sword, die by the sword, motherfucker.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:30:07 -0800

What? You mean Internet Land rape is no longer a prerequisite for admission to law school?

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:31:30 -0800

some time i'll tell you how many firms didn't like me! i ended up starting my own. I can just imagine.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:41:12 -0800

Sounds like the law firm wanted to hire people with good judgement. This guy obviously doesn't have any. Too bad.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:41:31 -0800

Now if you are working at a computer help desk, having your name attached to something controversial may not be a big deal. I used to work at a help desk years back, and like most people in the service industry they get treated like shit for helping out snotty clients. It can be a tough job, I really empathize with them. I've since moved on to some server administration and research programming. I don't know how professional those jobs are, but I was subjected to a typical background check, references etc. Lucky for me that my employer didn't ask me to pretend to be a lawyer at the time I applied for those jobs, so I guess I'll never have the opportunity to find out if I'm really a professional. I'd ask, but it might result in one of those "if you have to ask" kind of answers, you know?

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:52:47 -0800

it's not about the facts, it's about how we think about them I don't know whether to laugh or cry on this one. Future criminal prosecutors, listen up! It's not about whether the defendant killed that hobo, it's about how you think about the facts relating to the defendant who may or may not have killed that hobo.

By: deanc

deanc — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:55:38 -0800

it's not about the facts, it's about how we think about them Give this man an op-ed column in a major daily newspaper!

By: MapGuy

MapGuy — Wed, 09 May 2007 09:56:52 -0800

I am just glad you guys weren’t upset by this post on autoadmit So are the founders of Google responsible for linking to hate speech or providing information to an insurgency therefore making them an accessory to unlawful combatants? See ya’ in Gitmo!