Legal action by two women from Yale aimed at college discussion board AutoAdmit could pose a threat to anonymous trolling.
Reuters reports that the suit lodged June 8 in the U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of AutoAdmit, all of whom had defamed the women and subsequently are alleged to have cost an internship.
Although the case may well turn into an argument in relation to free speech online, it’s difficult to sympathize with the trolls. Free speech does need to be defended but it must be respected; with any power comes responsibility. Slandering people anonymously, particularly where that slander has direct consequences is a step too far. It’s amazing how many people seem to have a disconnect between the online world and offline world, one where perfectly sane and normal people who would never so much as say boo about anyone offline become the direct opposite online. The quicker everyone realizes that there are real people at the other end of online attacks, the better the overall online community will be.
(photo credit: Richard Dawkins)
Related topic but more egregious example:
http://postanap...s-and-wins.html
We should also remember the responsibility of the board administrator or moderators to delete those types of posts.
There are many forums with a no nonsense approach to matters of defamation; there are others that just want provocative posts, regardless of the etiquette.
Hahaha…spiderman fan out here!!!
I am guessing this might come down on the site owners to police somewhat, especially when a site specifically deals with personal reputation. I suppose it’ll sort itself out.
I don’t really see why anyone should be able to defame anonymously online, but at the same time, an employer should probably not be using anonymous claims as a basis for emplyment decisions either.
In any case, the anonymous days are numbered I think– but until then:
MICHAEL ARRINGTON IS A CHILD MURDERER.
He’s so screwed now.
Jobvent is calling a lawyer as we speak
and kewtr stop being soooo ironic
If you don’t get a position with some company or organization because they placed any value at all on some anonymous post(s), then consider yourself lucky that you aren’t working for a bunch of complete idiots.
Duncan: these trolls aren’t real prosumers right?
The assumption that it is “perfectly sane and normal people” who troll forums and comments and anonymously slander or assault people is, I think, erroneous. It’s like saying that Mel Gibson isn’t a racist idiot because he was drunk. Alcohol and anonymity work in the same way, they depress our social conditioning and allow our true selves, unfiltered, to emerge.
This is especially the case with trolls who are threatening women. Unfortunately, what this realization means is that we have to recognize that there are a whole lot more severely screwed up, vicious, nasty people out there than we would like to admit.
OK, so anonymous tips to bloggers are ok, but anonymous forum posts are bad?
Everyone has been a “troll” at some time, and the question of factual accuracy has little to do with whether a given post was made anonymously or not.
For those that don’t understand protection of sources in investigative journalism, there is little chance you will understand the need to remain anonymous. To you people I say:
Thank god for TOR and the many tools out there that help ensure identity concealment!
If an employer used anonymous internet information to make a decision on a hire without fact checking it – that would be a better case. Unless there was some truth to the information.
There are laws already that prevent libel (it’s not slander in this case, unless that another new “web 2.0 definition” like “prosumer”). The laws even give the victim the right to seek the name of the anonymous author. First however, they will need to show it’s libel – and this may be tough for them.
The articles says this lasted two years and mentions mostly name calling. Name calling, especially if the women we also posting and name calling as well, is not libel. There is a mention to “false claims of her academic record” – but if she means being called a “stupid bitch” – we’ll that’s not exactly libel either. There are also claims of rape threats – these wouldn’t be libel, but you could use them for criminal action.
From the article and the quotes this looks like the women got in many flame wars on this forum. Worse, they blogged about the flame wars and linked to them. An employer found the blog, found the flame wars, and decided she wasn’t level headed and she responded in a non-level headed manner. It seems her true wish isn’t a victory but just getting names listed – which she might get because I can see a Judge allowing her to subpoena the forum for the names. Assuming the forum has real names and addresses if not it will become a crazy list of subpoenas to track them down and it will be costly.
Oh yea, non of this has any thing to do free speech.
It seems like the sky is always falling for the rights to post anonymously. Isn’t this like round ten something on this issue?
The last time I checked the ACLU/EFF position was that before any subpoenas to identify users are released, a judge needs to review the postings first to make a determination that the communications are libelous and/or have a reasonable chance of meeting the legal standards for defamation.
Proving damages is going to be very difficult. The article doesn’t really highlight this fact, but what Jane Doe is asserting is that recruiters and interviewers from the most prestigious firms in the country used anonymous postings as part of their evaluation criteria.
If true, that’s really the more interesting claim. Let’s hear the evidence.
Oddly enough, I love trolling, but not of the sort that is described here.
A brilliant troll can get people riled up and offended over nothing. The joke becomes humorous to those who are able to figure out what’s going on, and infuriating to the played, i.e. those who haven’t figured it out. However, it’s essentially harmless. The best trolls (Media Kid, 174, Patrick E.S. Vine, pensive) on that site never hurt anyone. An example of a good troll would be posting a ridiculous situation (such as the “minus fucking eight” and “I find this board REPREHENSIBLE” threads) and watching people get into a heated debate over something entirely silly, spinning out 100 or 200 posts within an hour.
Doing things that are actually offensive and hurtful, such as posting racial slurs or slandering real-life, innocent people, isn’t artful and doesn’t take any talent. It’s shitty, incompetent trolling done by those who lack competence/originality and have no other way to draw attention than to be sociopathic assholes. This, unfortunately, describes 90% of the trolls and wannabe trolls on Autoadmit.
It seems pretty sad when you get enjoyment out of riling people up. And slandering should never be gotten away with in my book.
All contributions to the internet should be tied directly to a name that’s easy to look up. It’s near impossible to do anything with total anonymity online, but until that fact is made obvious to everyone, trolling will go on as it has.
People should just be professional online –
– I thought anonymity was dead /
– with IP logging and all that / they could find out who said what
actually,it is a good thing that anonymity is good.because that is where a lot of great ideas are produced
Maybe she is finding out how corrupt law really is.
We have forgotten good common horse sense and our constitution.
NPR is covering this today on All Things Considered, 6/18.
The use of the word “troll” here is a misnomer, imo.
See http://www.penn...omic/2004/03/19
seems like it is new movie coming out
fuck all this bitch in her stupid ass she isnt going to do shit!