Wow, And Some Of You Thought WE Were Bad

I certainly believe it. I'm sure these law school kids think defaming others will make it easier to get ahead of them in the rat race.

I wonder if this will become an issue with journalists... potential employers could google and come up with all kinds of nasty stuff from the reader comments section of newspapers' websites, not to mention fan boards.

 

At least we're all on a level playing field. Every one of us could be subject to something like that, and eventually, companies have to hire some warm body.

 

I sure am happy this board censors content.
I'd especially like to thank Webby, Moddy and the fine new moderators for keeping stuff like this from happening:

(from Washington Post article)
Another Yale law student learned a month ago that her photographs were posted in an AutoAdmit chat that included her name and graphic discussion about her breasts. She was also featured in a separate contest site -- with links posted on AutoAdmit chats -- to select the "hottest" female law student at "Top 14" law schools, which nearly crashed because of heavy traffic. Eventually her photos and comments about her and other contestants were posted on more than a dozen chat threads, many of which were accessible through Google searches.
"I felt completely objectified," that woman said. It was, she said, "as if they're stealing part of my character from me." The woman, a Fulbright scholar who graduated summa cum laude, said she now fears going to the gym because people on the site encouraged classmates to take cellphone pictures of her.

(Maybe when she passes the bar, she'll be the lawyer who convinces the courts that Internet sites and their owners should be held to certain standards -- or pay the consequences.)

 

Buckweaver blows goats. I have proof.

 

I agree.

 

Fair enough.
But how do those harmed repair their damaged reputations?
How do they convince potential employers that they were defamed by anonymous liars on the Internet?

That's my problem with bloggers and fan sites, too. Anyone can say anything about anyone and pretty soon it becomes fact. Google reserves it forever, even if it's not true. At least print and broadcast media operate under the theory that we should TRY to correct errors.

On the flip side: I'm always amazed when posters on this site write racist, sexist tripe. Don't they realize it's not hard to figure out their identity? Why would editors ever hire them? And someone like JDV, who posts under his own name ... you wonder if his employer ever tells him to stop being such a public fool.

 

I agree with you to a point, but I would hope that I haven't written anything too offensive - beyond the Colgate experience!
I do understand where you are coming from though, because shit has been written about me on-line before by readers and my old paper took it to be true.

 

I always thought the best thing about the Internet is the easy and instant access to reliable information from all over the globe, and the easy communication with people from all over the globe. What you guys think is the best thing about the Internet, it's unregulated content, can sometimes be the absolute worst thing.

This is why it's good to have rules and regulations at message boards like SportsJournalists.com, to keep idiots from going off half-cocked trying to ruin other people. That crap can follow people around, whether it's true or not. It's places like that law message board that add to the arguments of those who think the Internet should be more strongly regulated.

World Wide Web, indeed.

 

I have two points about this:

1. How chickenshit is it to say, "Well, I run the board, I set it up, I pay to have the fucking thing hosted, but it's not my place to remove selective comments, even if they're libelous, untrue or even in bad taste."

2. I can't decide who is the bigger joke: The insurance agent/lawyer who says he can't "selectively remove" offensive comments because he fears litigation, or the aspiring lawyers who would allegedly threaten litigation over their alleged right to post vile, racist, sexist, untrue stuff about their classmates, competitors and colleagues. And this Cohen guys "town square" analogy is flawed too. If I stand in the square and shout "Jarret Cohen is a rapist" for three hours in all likelihood I'm not going to do it wearing a mask, my words don't hang in the air forever for prospective employees to see, and even if I do, he can probably come up and punch me in the face. What if I went on that site and wrote "Jarret Cohen is a rapist and a pedophile who steals money from his insurance clients?" Does anyone think the same standard would apply to his inability to "selectively edit" posts?

One thing I do enjoy about SportsJournalists.com, even more so after reading that article, is that even if someone arrives here spouting lies and looking to embarrass or slam a real life person, the majority of people here don't stand for it. On this AutoAdmit message board, apparently wannabe lawyers just pile on.

 

One more reason to support the death penalty.... for lawyers.