What is your opinion about the issue of false, negative blogs?
I. The U.S. Constitution allows free speech, and people should be allowed to say whatever they want. Further, it is normal for people to have different perceptions about others. As such, it does not seem fair to prosecute someone who has a unique, negative perception about someone else.
2. The reputations of these two women were damaged by malicious, negative statements that were untrue. The individuals posting these statements should be punished, but not the AutoAdmit site. The site cannot police the accuracy of posted blogs.
3. Both the individuals making the malicious, negative statements and the blog site-AutoAdmitshould be punished. AutoAdmit should be held accountable because the women asked management of the site to remove untrue posts.
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 AutoAdmit 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 [2007] 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 "STANFORDtrol" 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.