When anonymous attackers went after two Yale law students, they struck back

I seriously question the judgment of anyone who uses anonymous, hyperbolic statements on the internet as criteria in any decision they make, let alone for a job application.<p>Historically information in publicly broadcast mediums has been trustworthy, but that's simply not true anymore. We need, as a society, to realize that the signal to noise ratio has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and that this trend will only continue.<p>That being said, it's astonishingly stupid to spend your free time making fun of the most litigious group of people on the face of the planet. The members of the forums pretty much deserve whatever they get.

It's a very long, very good read about what happens when defamation and character attacks get out of hand at a site. The owners did nothing to tone things down or to remove offending posts. It's interesting to note that the victims went after the perps and may have detroyed the perps careers.<p>I think we need a thoughtful discussion on how to deal with this or congress will do it for us.

This article is a good explanation of why it is wise to moderate online discussions. "One was finding out the firm where Ciolli would be working upon graduation and pressuring it to withdraw its offer. It turned out to be the Boston law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer &#38; Dodge, which in April rescinded its offer. The message board violated 'principles of collegiality and respect that members of the legal profession should observe in their dealings with other lawyers,' the firm’s managing partner, Charles DeWitt, wrote Ciolli."

This is something that can apply to us techies and just about anyone these days. Imagine a potential employer or an investor Google's your name and all they find is crap calling your character, or judgment, or skills into question. Bang goes the job or the funding ...<p>Heck, I don't even want people I don't know to find my Facebook or Twitter page; all it can takes is someone to post a potentially inappropriate photo, or an inappropriately tagged photo of you for your reputation to be destroyed in some circles. Which is why I keep a professional identity on LinkedIn, and obfuscate my other personal online identities (friend's can find me pretty easily).

I'm not convinced there was anything illegal about the threatening / abusive postings. I think we need to be careful about protecting our freedom of speech.<p>However, I'm very happy that those individuals who were identified have faced <i>social</i> repercussions for their behavior. I would not want anything to do with any of those posters. If I were hiring, I wouldn't hire any of them. I would probably boycott any businesses that work with them. If they're free to be jerks, I'm free take my business elsewhere.<p>Therein lies the more interesting issue. Anonymity. It's hard to exert social pressure on bad behavior if you can't identify the people involved. Do we have a right to be anonymous online? Do the pros outweigh the cons?<p>I really don't know...

Some of the comments were over the line (calling for physical attacks, etc), but most of the people being sued didn't actually say anything illegal (being 'mean' isn't illegal in the US). Jokes, opinions, and fantasy (no matter how lewd) shouldn't be illegal.<p>The article only acknowledges this at the very end: <i>"But many other posts, however cruel, might not be seen as extreme or outrageous enough to lose their First Amendment protection. As for defamation, the overwhelming majority of the comments could be construed as opinions, which are protected."</i><p>These women are going way overboard, and abusing the court system (and the fact that they have sufficient resources to legally harass posters) to get what they want. Frankly, because of their litigious behavior, I don't think I would ever hire either of them.

180

Somehow this vaguely reminds me of patent trolls