AutoAdmit Update: What Happened to Those Commenters Who Thought They Were Anonymous?
Interesting update on the AutoAdmit case. AutoAdmit was a message board in which posters who believed they were anonymous said the most remarkably foul and rude things about women attending Yale Law School:
When it comes to Heller and Iravani, some of [the postings] were unique all right: uniquely sadistic, subjecting the women to what can only be called a cyber-stoning, in which participants vied to hurl the biggest rock. They wrote, falsely, that Heller has herpes and had bribed her way into Yale—helped by a secret lesbian affair with the dean of admissions—and that Iravani has gonorrhea, is addicted to heroin, and had exchanged oral sex with Yale Law School’s dean for a passing grade in civil procedure.
I see no freedom of speech issue in such false and defamatory statements. There is a good legal argument for the immunity of the owner of the site. But the posters who said such ugly and untrue things have no defense at all, nor should they. (I have previously disagreed with a couple of law professors who denigrated the lawsuits here.)
The update on the various lawsuits provides an object lesson for people who think they can type any old false thing they like on the Internet and rely on their complete anonymity:
Now the challenge before the women was to smoke out the defendants’ identities. . . . [S]ome of the defendants could easily be found through prior postings, and some emerged in other ways. One, Vincimus—whose description of Iravani in the gym was surely one of the most innocuous of the quotes at issue—even approached Iravani on campus to confess. He is a Yale law student named Kirk Cheney, a young father who graduated from Brigham Young University. (Cheney declined to comment.) Another poster, Pauliewalnuts, who helped run the online beauty contest, is a recent Seton Hall graduate named Douglas Phillibaum. And Whamo, who had suggested that Iravani had “the clap,” is a University of Iowa undergraduate named Joe Traw.
More than the others, Traw has made his anguish over what he’d done a matter of public record, continuing to post and veering between incredulity, defiance, contrition, and abject terror. “I didn’t mean to say anything bad,” he wrote importunately. “I don’t want to hurt anyone. What the fuck do I do when I hate myself this much?” Perhaps, he thought, he’d drop out of school and go fight in Iraq. At least there, he wrote, he could die for a far worthier cause than defending what he’d done. “What I said about her was absolutely terrible, and I deserve to have my life ruined,” he wrote. When I spoke with him months later, he was still emphatically rebuking himself. He said he’d shelved plans for law school and was indeed enlisting in the military. “I said something really stupid on the fucking internet, I typed for literally, like, 12 seconds, and it devastated my life,” he told me.
. . . .
AK47, the defendant who had said that women named Heide should be raped, was frantic over being sued. (His real name remains known only to the plaintiffs.) “I beg you to release me from this lawsuit,” he wrote the two women, in a letter that then became part of the court file. “AutoAdmit is a fantastic waste of time, and indeed ought to be shut down, lest this sort of thing happen again. That said, I cannot and will not be dragged into this huge mess simply because I made an inane, nonthreatening and certainly nonactionable comment on the site.” His posting was, he insisted, “a suggestion, not a threat.” He warned that he would lose his job if outed; he threatened to seek help online to corroborate all of the awful things said about the two women in order to defend himself.
Heller and Iravani indeed have a formidable weapon in their arsenal: The ability to wreak havoc in the lives and careers of anyone they identify. Faced with embarrassment or ruin, Cheney, Phillibaum, and Traw quietly caved, paying amounts somewhere in the low to mid four figures in exchange for promises from the plaintiffs not to publicize who they were.
The people who will not take heed, apparently, are the losers. But as Bob Dylan said: “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”
For Matthew Ryan—whose alter ego, :D, claimed that Heller had herpes—the lawsuit seems to pose little concern. According to what he subsequently wrote on the message board, he had no money or reputation to defend. “I’m giddy over meeting my cheerful, big-titted accuser in court,” he wrote. Ryan, a recent graduate of the University of Texas, is trying to get his case dismissed, but he’s fine with going to trial—“I’m not a fan of frivolous, abusive litigation,” he told me—especially since his parents’ homeowner’s policy seems to cover his defense. Lemley says the case against Ryan is the women’s strongest: “When we get to trial, the only question is going to be the amount of damages.”
The lesson is: you may not be anonymous. So watch what you say — at least, if you don’t plan to be a loser all your life.
We know who this mendouchous idiot is:
“A Republican party that added more than $30 trillion to the future debt in a time of boom has no credible answer but raw partisanship for opposing $800 billion in the swiftest downturn in employment since the Great Depression. That’s the bottom line.”
Andrew “The Conservative Soul” Sullivan.
What 30 Trillion dollars is Sullivan talking about? Where did he pull that number from? Id did not care for increases of spendging under Bush and agree the GOP should have done more, but I must have missed the 30 trillion in future debt.
Joe (17aeff) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:16 amI’m sure you’re right, fine host, about the lesson for useless morons. But if you’re aspiring to more, you could take a lesson whether or not anonymous: Don’t be an asshole.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:23 amI’m not a lawyer, nor claim any expertise in matters of the law – but I seem to remember that while free speech is a right, anonymous defamation of another’s character is not. Hope they all get outed and publicly shamed for their noxious and repellant behavior. Gee, this case reminds me of someone who used to post here…
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:27 amGlad to see them being “outed”. I think most people would prefer to use their name on the internet boards and forums but have concerns about privacy and possible harassment from cretins such as posted at AutoAdmit.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:31 amI suspect that many of these morons don’t realize that their ID is available to the web site owner. A few serious sociopaths might use false and spoofed addresses but most are clueless.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:34 amI just want to note for a second that Matthew Ryan is not the professor at UT, and he did not attend the School of Law at UT or anywhere else. He was an undergrad at UT.
And he’s a tremendous ass.
XOXO really helped me get into law school (UT Law, in fact). The frankness of the advice on that site eclipsed Lawschooldiscussion or the various other boards that were ridiculous and inane.
But xoxo is completely open for virtually any kind of comment. Nothing gets deleted, practically ever. So I had to wade through stupid comments about Jews, blacks, women, etc. It’s stupid, wasteful of time, and says a lot about Academic American culture (which is far more racist and backwards than, say, the military culture).
I ignored that stuff and took the advice I got. But you can’t really ignore it when the ‘jokes’ become about specific people who have real lives that these people screwed with.
AK47 and the rest of them deserve what they got. The administration of xoxo has let us all down by not immediately banning them and releasing their IP addresses.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 2/13/2009 @ 7:58 amCan anyone with administrative privileges fix the spelling of “AutoAdmit” in the title?
Patterico (ec3c23) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:15 amThis was such a collective act of hatred and sexism by some of the weakest charactered wussies that it’s still shocking. To me it only makes a difference whether anonymous or not in that it saves time with the investigation and legwork necessary to expose the commenter. Either way their viciousness has accomplished its very intended damage.
And guessing that their parents contributed to their sons’ educations, these must be some really proud parents, especially Matthew Ryan’s folks’ whose son apparently doesn’t have a problem using their homeowner’s policy to cover his defense. I would be so disappointed.
Dana (137151) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:18 amI don’t know about the rest of you, but I keep wondering if a certain student from Montana might fit right in at Yale Law School. At least based on the AutoAdmit posts.
Grades and LSATs not withstanding.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:24 amDana, you are spot on.
They knew and know they are causing damage, and think it’s hilarious. The internet gives small people a lot of power to scream. That can be good, but it’s also full of this kind of crap.
I went back to the xo board for the first time in many months 5 minutes ago. Stickied at the top is a thread about a scrabble board with the N word. Why? Because the administration of that board condones and even promotes racism.
What’s really sick is that these abuses really hurt the cause of free speech. I want the right to say whatever I want on the internet, free of government awareness. That kind of freedom is jeopardized by these folks.
They think they are shocking and daring, but they are just boring and petty.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:34 amBullies in general are weaklings who feel badly about themselves, so they find seemingly powerless people to attack. For some reason, this makes the bully feel strong and cool and supermacho (male and female both).
But notice how these cyberbullies respond when they are forced to “own” what they wrote.
Not so tough and free and supermacho, suddenly.
Like the very good commercial on television states: “If you aren’t willing to say it face to face, why would you write it on the internet?”
Another example of cyberbullying.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:41 amThey may indeed boring and petty but have no doubt that these levels of viciousness do instill a certain level of fear. This is an awful, awful thing.
Unfortunately there isn’t a universal rule of thumb used by all posters/commenters: If you wouldn’t say it to the person’s face while looking them dead in the eye, then don’t say it at all.
Dana (137151) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:41 amWhile student Matthew Ryan is a major ass, my vote for biggest ass in the whole episode is “AK47.” Besides having such a ridiculous pseudonym, nowhere, in his cowardly little “please don’t tell people who I am” rant letter, does he actually express remorse or sorrow for writing what he wrote. At most, he says that the entire site was a “waste of time” … and in his letter to the plaintiffs he threatened to try to dig up dirt on THEM if they pressed forward with the suit.
If I were AK47’s employer, I would certainly fire him, for not having the character to stand up and take responsibility for his actions.
PatHMV (653160) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:45 amPatHMV, because their actual identities will be (are being) revealed, I think that their law career prospects will be somewhat truncated.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:51 amDana, you know the answer to that: most of these people are complete passive-aggressive cowards, trying to feel tough and powerful and righteous in a physically safe environment.
As you say (and the cyberbullying commercial): if you can’t say it to their face, don’t write it on the Internet.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:53 amI am not here. Hehe. 🙂
Anonymous (0c8c2c) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:56 amThey can’t see me. I can say and do whatever I like.
And how do we know that is even you, Emp?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 8:59 amEric, is it certain that their identities will ultimately be publicly revealed? The plaintiffs already have most (all?) the identities. The quoted article notes that currently the plaintiffs do have AK47’s identity, but that information has not become public yet. The article also suggests settlement agreements for some of the defendants, which no doubt contain confidentiality clauses. It’s not clear from the article whether AK47 has settled, but surely if the plaintiffs were willing to accept a confidentiality agreement, it would be in his interests to settle and preserve his anonymity.
PatHMV (653160) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:08 amComment by Eric Blair — 2/13/2009 @ 8:59 am
Anonymous (0c8c2c) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:09 amWhat? Who said that? That’s impossible! No one can see me….
Internet anonymity is obviously possible. Using a coffee shop and deleting cookies, or using proxies and things like that.
Too bad we can’t just appeal to morality and decency.
Dana notes that this creates fear. I’m pretty sure there are many black law students who are more paranoid than before about how whites view their intelligence. Of course AK47 even now is threatening to publicize true or untrue rumors about the plaintiffs. I don’t think most Jewish law students are scared so much as outraged or annoyed, but that’s just my personal racial stereotyping. The impact of harming the psyche of such people probably feels powerful to AK47 and folks like that.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:37 amThis bravado when doing deeds while thought to be anonymous and then caving/whining when ID’ed reminds me of the Jay R. Grodner case (Grodner also was a lawyer).
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/01/anti-military-l.html
jim2 (6482d8) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:41 amPeople are so messed up. Why would anyone say such horrible things about someone else? How is that fun?
TLove (012115) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:43 amHaving been online since the Carter administration, this is just more of the same-old same-old. It is amazing what people, my younger self included, will say when they think they are anonymous.
One of several reasons I post under my right name.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:44 amTLove, it is all about the bully mentality. It’s a sickness. Bullies don’t have to be big strong people. They can be little weak weasels who are angry that they are little weak weasels.
For some reason, they feel better about themselves by hurting others. And there is a name for that.
PatHMV, I sure hope all of these people keep a lot of attention in the public eye.
Kevin Murphy: nicely done. But you are owning what you did, and what you do. That is the difference.
There is a difference between anonymity to protect one’s own job, and anonymity to give oneself license to be a jackass. And you might be onto something with the maturity (as opposed to chronological age) business.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/13/2009 @ 9:51 amI blog under my namer so no one would ever believe I really was EricPWJohnson
No wait…. that didnt sound as intelligent as I wanted it too…….
EricPWJohnson (94a0be) — 2/13/2009 @ 10:22 amThat is why I use my public nickname, which has been part of my signature for the last 13 years. I started using it when my first grandchild was born (it means grandfather) and just use it as a user ID. However, I put my full name in my gmail profile and as part of my email signature.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Sabba Hillel (b3a959) — 2/13/2009 @ 10:23 amKids with a lot of time on their hands. What do you expect?
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/13/2009 @ 10:44 amSince your ISP number is a part of any posting the only way anyone with brains can remain anonymous is to use one of the hundreds of public computers available all over town. That’s what I do whenever I send a death threat, politically incorrect statement, or sexual accusation. Does it work? Three arrests and no convictions.
howard432 (3f8901) — 2/13/2009 @ 11:11 amThey can be little weak weasels who are angry that they are little weak weasels.
I believe by default they always are, not can be.
Dana (137151) — 2/13/2009 @ 11:21 amThe issue seems to be whether this is opinion/
eaglewingz08 (c46606) — 2/13/2009 @ 11:24 amhyperbole satire, in the context of the free ranging message board. Whether any reasonable person would believe the statements to be true factual statements or whether it was just a venting of outrageous opinion. The second is whether these persons are public figures or limited public figures in which case the burden is higher.
I blog under this name because you would never believe that I am really Fred Thompson.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 2/13/2009 @ 11:27 amI suspect Matthew Ryan is going to be upset when the judgment against him ends up coming out of future wages… I bet the jury will react badly towards someone who thinks to have gamed the system by way of “having no money”.
Also, since his parents are providing his defense, is it possible to go after their assets? Bet that will affect the little troglodyte.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/13/2009 @ 12:08 pmI was just going to say, that judgement is good for twenty years, and anything he owns in his own name can be attached with a lien or even sold. Good luck buying your first car or house, Ryan.
SarahW (fdd722) — 2/13/2009 @ 12:34 pmAlso, since his parents are providing his defense, is it possible to go after their assets?
That’s a bit of an overreaction, isn’t it? A lot of parents help out their idiot children. They did not harm the plaintiffs by providing a lawyer.
But of course, the answer is no. I doubt these parents are even bad people. It sounds like the plaintiffs are going to be getting more than $50,000 out of this. I personally think that’s enough.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 2/13/2009 @ 12:50 pm“So watch what you say — at least, if you don’t plan to be a loser all your life.”
Wow
SteveG (a87dae) — 2/13/2009 @ 1:39 pmI have a path out of my misery…. I just need to learn when to shut up.
My wife looks doubtful
It’s horrible for little fetal lawyers to be mistreated before they’re done gestating I think. Right up until the last minute I think they need every ounce of understanding and kindness our society can muster.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/13/2009 @ 1:39 pmThis is partly why I would never make a good attorney. My principled nature cannot allow me to argue in favor of miscreant behavior.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/13/2009 @ 2:43 pm