Yale Law Students Start Naming Names in Suit Over Blog Posts

Internet Law

Yale Law Students Start Naming Names in Suit Over Blog Posts

Posted Aug 6, 2008, 02:59 pm CST
By Martha Neil

Two female students at Yale Law School have begun identifying, in federal court papers, the defendants who allegedly posted vile comments about them under anonymous screen names on an Internet discussion board—and are unwilling to settle the lawsuit they brought as a result. The two students learned the posters' names by subpoenaing Internet service providers.

A student at the University of Texas at Austin, Mathew C. Ryan, is the first to be unmasked, according to the Associated Press and Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor who is representing the plaintiffs. Most of the other defendants are law students, Lemley says. Among the AutoAdmit posts that are at issue in the case are statements that identified women should be raped.

The prospect of the defendants being identified has elicited criticism from some, including a number of commenters on an earlier ABAJournal.com post about the case, which was filed in federal court in New Haven, Conn. Being known to have made such comments could harm the posters professionally, critics point out.

However, the plaintiffs say the AutoAdmit posts defamed them and were sexually harassing and threatening. Such posts can also have adverse professional consequences for those targeted, the Washington Post wrote in an article last year.

"The judge overseeing the women's lawsuit has agreed to let them proceed under pseudonyms because of their fears of further harassment," the article notes.

Ryan did not immediately respond to AP requests for comment.

Meanwhile, the situation has put an unwelcome spotlight on an entirely different person in Austin with a very similar name, who happens to be a local attorney and adjunct law professor at the University of Texas. He has been receiving some media inquiries.

The Mathew C. Ryan who is a UT student and a defendant in the litigation is not the Matthew C. Ryan who practices as a partner at a local law firm, Lemley has confirmed to ABAJournal.com.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by p.s. - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

For anyone who’s interested…
A copy of the Yale students’ civil complaint can be found here
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/another-amended-complaint-in-the-auto-admit-case
A copy of Ciolli’s countersuit against the Yale students can be found here:
http://abovethelaw.com/images/IravaniComplaint.pdf
Posted by Marc J. Randazza - 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

The Washington Post article was such a hack job… I don’t understand why the Ms. Neil insists on citing to it. The only newspaper that has done a good job reporting on this is the Yale Daily News.

This is laughable:

“"The judge overseeing the women’s lawsuit has agreed to let them proceed under pseudonyms because of their fears of further harassment,“ the article notes.“

No, the judge did not “agree” to anything. They filed pseudonymously and no defendant has challenged their right to do so.
Posted by mockingbird1979 - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 45 minutes ago

I’m very interested to see where this case goes. While I cherish the freedom of speech, I also firmly believe that we must take responsibility for our words and accept the consequences (good or bad) that come with our freedoms. While I am unsure as to whether the speech here represents “hate speech,“ it seems that the urging of these posters to “rape” the female plaintiffs would surely constitute an incitement of violence.
Regardless of the legal matter at hand, I am amused to see the posters unmasked. As a rule, I generally do not post comments that I would not feel courageous enough to say to my friends or colleagues. As I visit any number of the “message boards” of seemingly respected newspapers, online journals or other news outlets, I am continuously shocked to see the often racist, profane and disgusting comments. I highly doubt whether such people would make their private beliefs known for fear of social condemnation. I often think of this anonymous posting “rage” in regards to road rage: people feel safe, insulated (ie: non-public) in their cars, so all social graces go out the window. The mask of the Internet, so too, allows people to demean, hate, and perhaps even commit civil infractions while enjoying the lack of consequences.
Posted by Will - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 28 minutes ago

To Mockingbird,

Anonymity is central to the exercise of free speech. Alexander Hamilton didn’t sign his real name to the Federalist Papers, and for good reason; it would have gotten him hung.

The law has to balance anonymity and the right to redress for libel. But make no mistake about it: anonymous speech is a crucial part of our Constitutional rights.

Will
Posted by Al Martino - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 34 minutes ago

Look, even if someone yelled “fire” in a crowded theater dressed as Ben Franklin, they are still responsible for their words.

I don’t feel the Yale vs. loser males case is the last word. I do think it is part of the push back against angry, hateful, and malicious people that engage in behavior that harms others, without consequences. I am all for the case, outing the defendants, and having them own their words. Hopefully, case law will result in a way forward for more counter-measures to make people like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

...far less powerful. The criminal mind has no consideration for the victim—these perps are cyber criminals—and deserve to be tarred and feathered.

Al
Posted by natty bumppo - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes ago

will,
you really should get your histor, and your constitutional analysis in better order before you post. hamilton certainly was not in any fear of hanging—everyone knew who wrote the FP—and I’m not sure when you dreamt about the constitutional significance of anonymous speech. certainly not this kind of anonymous speech…
Posted by Kevin - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 13 minutes ago

I am curious to see how this will play out. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the two women suffered any real harm from those posts. As a law student who regularly cruises the AutoAdmit forums, I can testify that the board is known throughout the law student community as a refuge for the pinheaded, anti-social, and mean for the sake of mean among us. It should be obvious to anyone posting there if they read the forums for 5 minutes that they will likely have all manner of hateful insults and invective hurled at them. This sounds more like an attempt to obtain compensation for hurt feelings (from an internet message board, of all things) than any real “Libel” suit.
Posted by associate - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 54 minutes ago

Kevin, I agree.

I think the more interesting issue in this case will be the destruction of the AutoAdmit forums. Forums who intentionally destroy anonymity are not long for the internet.
Posted by Erin - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 47 minutes ago

Will, you are absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

The right to free speech, even anonymously, can only be abridged by the government in certain compelling circumstances. That said, defamation, libel, incitement to violence, etc. has never, ever been considered speech protected by the First Amendment. This false security of “online anonymity” that my generation and those younger than me have grown up with is a dangerous thing, and the law of libel has yet to catch up with it. But it will, and this law suit may be a sign of what’s to come. If successful, it would send the message that no matter whether you sign your name to it or not, you are ultimately responsible for the harm your words can do.

In addition, we should be careful to remember that the Constitution protects citizens from action taken by the government, not action taken between private citizens. Here, we have many private individuals making statements on a privately run (but publicly accessible) web site. The allegedly injured parties are suing for civil damages. There is no criminal or other action being taken by the government by which one could even invoke the protections of the US Constitution.

I hope you aren’t in the First Amendment field, my friend.
Posted by Jerry - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 55 minutes ago

Will (#4) (if that really is your name), I don’t know if Alexander Hamilton was hung (although he was reputedly popular with the ladies), nor was he hanged; instead, he was ultimately shot by the Vice President, who was a better shot than the current holder of that office.

Seriously, I don’t think Hamilton or anyone else was in any danger of being hanged for supporting ratification of the Constitution. His identify, the identity of all of the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and their support for ratification were all matters of public knowledge. And who would have tried to hang them and what for? Maybe you should read up on your American history before wrapping yourself in the flag.
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago

What a ridiculous lawsuit… Suing because an anonymous poster on an internet message board said, to no one in particular, various “insulting” things about them?

If I was that sensitive I’d have a million lawsuits by now. If these girls think that’s the worst that will ever be said about them I hope they never enter the profession of law.

Grow up.
Posted by Aaron Burr - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes ago

To Will’s point, though, substantial case law supports the notion that the right to anonymity is implicit in the right to free speech. This conclusion rests upon the notion that free speech is not only what is said, but what is un-said. The author’s identity is but a component of their publication, which may be excluded as a result of the speaker’s own editorial decision.

Or so goes the argument. I don’t find that particularly convincing, nor do I think the Internet is so easily compartmentalized by traditional interpretation - but that’s the gist.

I’m only playing devil’s advocate for the sake of pointing out that everyone is correct in a sense - some legally, and some logically. It’s unfortunate that divergence exists, but it does.
Posted by Michael Hamden - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago

blah, blah, blah. Will is right in all respects material to this discussion. Hamilton did not sign his name to the Federalist Papers for fear of reprisal, up to and including death on the gallows. (Thus, Ben Franklin’s quip at the constitutional convention, “We must hang together or we shall surely hang separately.“

If the men alleged to have said vile things about these women did so, they should have their mouths washed out with soap. If they advocated rape, that’s a more serious matter, but not one that incites immediate violence, and it is almost certainly not criminal (though I would never underestimate the creativity of a zealous prosecutor).

I see this as but one of many efforts to restrain speech that may well be objectionable, but not illegal. That’s a dangerous direction for our society to take, and one none of us should have to put up with.

Now let’s all get back to sensitivity training and learn to keep our thoughts to ourselves where they can never be discussed or tested, and providing many fewer opportunities for personal growth. We certainly wouldn’t want to offend anyone, no matter how delicate their sensibilities.
Posted by Mike - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 54 minutes ago

Sorry, Erin, but the first amendment does apply to civil actions for damages allegedly caused by speech; read New York Time v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Therefore, the posters may well be protected from liability for insulting comments and opinions that caused emotional distress. However, they probably are not protected with regard to false statements of fact, since the plaintiffs are not public figures and should be able to prove fault. The first amendment also protects the advocacy of violence to a great extent; read Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Posted by Walter Scott - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 44 minutes ago

Pictures are hung; persons are hanged.
Posted by Anon - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 40 minutes ago

These women WERE affected by this website - I remember reading that a couple of them had summer associate positions pulled by lawfirms who found the vile postings about them and freaked out. So yes, they were affected financially and not just emotionally.

That’s really unfortunate for the practicing attorney in Austin with the same name as the loser posting hateful comments.
Posted by Mike - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 40 minutes ago

Will and Michael Hamden:
The danger of hanging came during the revolutionary period; Ben Franklin’s comment was made during that time. The constitutional convention came after the Revolutionary War was over and independence was won. Thus, the authors of the Federalist Papers did not use pseudonyms because they feared being hanged. You are correct, though, that courts have found a first amendment right to anonymous speech, but that right is not absolute.
Posted by Liam - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

The Federalist Papers were written from 1787 to 1788. Hamilton wrote the first on under a pseudonym for political purposes. There was no threat of hanging.

If you break the law or commit a tort, then courts can pierce anonymity. Seems like a simple rule.
Posted by natty bumppo - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes ago

dan-

if you think these women are overly “sensitive” read the complaint…that should cure you of any sympathy for the anonymous posters.

and the problem here is that this stuff costs people very real employment opportunities b/c employers now google you before hiring—and when the kind of stuff these guys said turns up, you’re out.

so while i’m not unsympathetic to the sophisticated “grow up” argument; the facts here are egregious and the consequences very real…
Posted by R - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes ago

Dan - have to agree with post #19. Initially I thought they must be a little too sensitive too, but after reading the complaint I’m appalled at what they’ve had to go through. Are you aware that people were saying they should be “raped” until they “die”? And that one person who used the fake name of a fictional mass murderer sent an email to a Yale faculty member accusing one of the plaintiffs of criminal conduct? Unbelievably vile stuff.

These bloggers CHOSE names like “AK47,“ “Dirty N**ger” (with no ampersands) and “HitlerHitlerHitler.“ They chose them and posted with impunity because they thought they couldn’t be found out. Lo and behold, they could.

You can TRY to engage in anonymous speech, but there’s no First Amendment RIGHT to do so. If you libel and slander someone and they find out who you are, too bad for you! I hope all these bloggers get exposed and have to pay fair damages for the harm they’ve caused.
Posted by Ashtar94 - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes ago

I read the complaint.

It’s a shame that the ABA article and most of the posters are focusing on the fact that the posters are a bunch of A-holes. There is no doubt that they are in fact A-holes. Their screen names reflect that (as R (#20) mentioned). Their comments about how the plaintiffs should be raped and killed definitely show it. But—and this is where people will disagree with me—the posters should not be sued for just those comments, standing alone. It’s not against the law to be an A-hole.

Unfortunately, the article passes over the fact that posters didn’t stop at making stupid and cruel comments. According to the complaint, the posters also made false and disparaging comments about the plaintiffs. (At least one could qualify as libel per se, depending on how the “loathsome disease” criterion is handled these days.) At that point, the First Amendment should no longer protect these posters from being sued. And if these despicable posters lose their anonymity as a result of a valid lawsuit against them, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

Bottom line, in my opinion: A-holes have the right to free speech and anonymity; tortious A-holes do not.
Posted by Nathaniel Sorenson - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

It is interesting to me that so many of the people arguing for exposure of the bloggers have themselves used posting names that hide their identity. When we start to expose some anonymous bloggers, it won’t be long until the rest are soon exposed as well.

I agree with Ashtar94. Even a jerk has the right to free speech. However, the jerk needs to make sure not to cross the line.
Posted by Jen DC - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 42 minutes ago

Yes, unfortunately, these a**holes do have the right to say most of these things. The real problem is the downward spiral of what passes for American “culture” these days. There’s a certain level of entitlement that these kids apparently feel - which is why they feel free to say these things. Nothing matters to them; if they were intelligent, they might argue they are nihilists and to them, none of this matters that much anyway.

Basically, the insulting posters need spankings. A good old fashioned a** whippin’ by someone who really knows how to give one. <Swack> Are you <swack> gonna post <swack> anonymously <swack> again? <swack swack> Was it really worth it <swack> to have your name <swack swack> come to the attention <swack> of employers like this? <swack swack>
Posted by Jerry - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 46 minutes ago

Michael Hampden (#13), you’re only off by 11 years.

Franklin supposedly made his comment about hanging in 1776 at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (although the comment is not attested to by any contemporary sources). The Constitutional Convention was in 1787, after independence had been achieved, and no one, including Hamilton, was in danger of being hanged for wanting to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

If you want constitutional law to make any sense, you first need to get a basic understanding of American history.
Posted by Jonathan Edwards - 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 56 minutes ago

It was appalling to read some of the historical errors in many of these posts. I consider law as a study of history, it is rather apparent that many of my supposed cohorts do not.
Posted by df - 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago

I’ll be interested to see what happens; and I must admit I don’t have much sympathy for the formerly-pseudonymous individuals (though that has nothing to do with the law!).

I just glanced at the complaint, but depending upon the governing law I don’t see why there wouldn’t be potential tort liability based not only on defamation (including imputation of unchastity or deviant sexual behaviour [“whore”] vis-a-vis the classic slander-per-se category), but possibly invasion of privacy also?
Posted by John Buso - 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 3 minutes ago

I am surprised at comments suggesting that a defendant should be protected with regard to false statements of fact because he did not sign his name. I have not found this issue discussed in a defamation case.

Hey, the guys got caught. If what they wrote is defamation, why should they avoid responsibility?

On the other hand, these “loser males” may make a legitimate agrument that fact that the postings were anonymous or used fake names should relate to damages. No one should have taken their unsigned statements seriously. Why would a “Yale faulty member” believe a message from a “person who used the fake name of a fictional mass murderer ... accusing one of the plaintiffs of criminal conduct?“ Would anyone here believe someone who signed the name “HitlerHitlerHitler” to such a message? Accepting the comment by “Will” that “[a]nonymity is central to the exercise of free speech,“ readers of these comments should not have taken them as true. It’s similar to the ‘you are too smart to have trusted me defense’ to an action for fraud.

I also agree with Nathaniel Sorenson (#22) about the identity of those posting comments regarding . Is there any reason for someone posting here not use their name?
Posted by mockingbird1979 - 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes ago

Will -
I absolutely agree with the overall sentiment behind your comment in reaction to mine (although, I, like other posters here, believe that the authorship of the Federalist Papers was never truly in question). I wasn’t making a legal argument or comment in my analysis of the case; I was simply relating my personal experiences with message boards and the often-times disturbing posts therein.
I am an absolute believer in free speech; I was speaking to moral obligations, not whether the posters’ speech was legal or not (although, as I stated, one may argue that encouraging rape is tantamount to yelling “Fire!“ in a crowded theater - especially when these women were publicly identifiable). Thank you for your comment though - I should have clarified that my position was not a legal one.
Posted by C - 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 33 minutes ago

I’m just not seeing how these plaintiff’s were damaged. No rational human being would believe a posting calling for someone to be raped. In fact I doubt most people would lend credence to a post by someone using the name “Hitler.“ Isn’t stating that someone should be raped an opinion (abet a vile one). I’d be more interested to know what organization, school, firm, or other entity rejected these plaintiff’s because of the posts?

On the other hand, if the lawsuit was merely to expose the posters to public ridicule and shame and money is the afterthought… more power to the plaintiff, the need to be very careful however, or they may be on the other end of a lawsuit by anyone they mistakenly name.
Posted by df - 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 14 minutes ago

#26 again. The more disturbing (calling for rape, etc.) stuff seems the less-actionable stuff than other elements of the complaint. Accusations of criminality (drug use) is defamation per se (if the applicable law still has that) as is the previous type I noted, with damages presumed in law, no proof needed. Even if no defamation per se under the applicable law, the e-mail to the Yale professor might lead to proof of damages. Didn’t I read somewhere that one of the plaintiffs alleged losing out on a position because of the postings or an e-mail?
Posted by Bobby H - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 8 hours, 19 minutes ago

“Being known to have made such comments could harm the posters professionally, critics point out.“
Then DON"T MAKE THEM! I’m not taking sides on this issue actually, but that comment is the most ridiculous!

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Internet Law