A Different Tony Gets Whacked
The WSJ Law Blog alerts us that former moderator Anthony Ciolli and a whole bunch of pseudonomous posters on Autoadmit have been sued in the District of Connecticut by a legal team including Mark Lemley. I read the complaint this morning. The plaintiffs (two YLS students who were defamed and threatened on the site) are apparently hanging their federal jurisdiction on copyright infringement, inasmuch as at least one of the victims owned the copyright in a photo of her that was posted to the site (or possibly to an ancillary site set up for a revolting "attractiveness contest"). But the "gravamen," as they say, is clearly a welter of state law claims: defamation, false light, and so forth.
I would think that Ciolli is almost certainly immune from tort liability for others' postings under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Someone better informed than me might be able to say whether he has a failure-to-comply-with-notice-and-takedown-requirements defense under the DMCA for the copyright claim. Other thoughts:
Interesting that the other (and current) site moderator wasn't sued. Not sure why. Can someone explain this?
The complaint is not all that terribly well drafted, but it does provide a convenient sampling of some of the outrageous comments from the site. Anyone who doesn't want to spend time plowing through Autoadmit's clunky interface but who wants to know what all the fuss is about should take a look.
All of the actual posters are being sued pseudonomously. Anybody have a sense how likely it is that the plaintiffs will be able to get their names through discovery?
If the copyright claim is dismissed, the case probably gets tossed, to be re-filed in Connecticut state court, right? What difference would that make?
UPDATE: See Eugene Volokh's posts on the complaint here and here.
I would think that Ciolli is almost certainly immune from tort liability for others' postings under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Someone better informed than me might be able to say whether he has a failure-to-comply-with-notice-and-takedown-requirements defense under the DMCA for the copyright claim. Other thoughts:
Interesting that the other (and current) site moderator wasn't sued. Not sure why. Can someone explain this?
The complaint is not all that terribly well drafted, but it does provide a convenient sampling of some of the outrageous comments from the site. Anyone who doesn't want to spend time plowing through Autoadmit's clunky interface but who wants to know what all the fuss is about should take a look.
All of the actual posters are being sued pseudonomously. Anybody have a sense how likely it is that the plaintiffs will be able to get their names through discovery?
If the copyright claim is dismissed, the case probably gets tossed, to be re-filed in Connecticut state court, right? What difference would that make?
UPDATE: See Eugene Volokh's posts on the complaint here and here.
Labels: Law School, Legal Culture
posted by Isaac Zaur at 6:30 PM
14 Comments:
Seems strange that they posted the summons in an autoadmit thread and threatened default judgments against anyone who didn't respond to the complaint. (see ATL blog). Doesn't seem like proper service. Can't imagine the judge would enter a default udgment against defendants who weren't properly served. Additionally, why did they not go after Cohen? Ciolli is unemployed and probably judgment-proof. I'm not familiar with the substantive law regarding immunity for site owners and administrators for content posted by third parties therein, but it seems odd not to at least try to get Cohen in as a defendant, if for no other reason than to compel him to release the identities behind the usernames.
Some thoughts:
1) My understanding is that the DMCA take-down provisions act only as a safe harbor, and that failure to comply with them only means that you're not able to be immune from liability, not that you've incurred any additional liability. Also, did AutoAdmit ever receive a valid take-down notice?
2) A lot of the posts cited in the complaint are indeed crude, obscene, and distasteful... but not illegal. For example, posters describing what sexual acts they want to perform on the women.
What do you mean not "illegal"? Like maybe the posters can't be thrown in jail? A number of these statements appear to be active threats (or at least, would appear to be highly threatening to the reasonable woman).
There's a good argument that a number of these statements are defamatory (they damage the women's reputations by asserting a fact--or giving an opinion that seems based on fact--that reflects negatively on their character (for morality)). There's a better case for false light--these posts, widely disseminated through the website--materially misrepresent theses women in an objectionable way. Particularly pulling the pictures off of shutterfly and posting them in inane, threatening, masochistic ratings contests would seem to qualify as false light.
There's plenty that amounts to "illegal."
Putting aside the particulars of this case, I'm curious what people think of that way that these sorts of things should be handled. Anonymous speech (hehe look who's talking) on-line can get really really nasty, has ridiculously low barriers to entry, and an instant world-wide audience. On the other hand, "sucks sites" and other forums for complaints and insults (especially directed at a public figure) can be valuable.
I'm inclined to think that there should be DMCA-like take downs for tortious speech on-line, but I might just be reacting too strongly to AutoAdmit. The problem with such a scheme would clearly be the definition of tortious. Incentives would have to be structured so that the administrator of the site wouldn't want to keep bad posts up, but would also want to defend the good, even if questionable, ones. That's a narrow line to follow and a general commitment to free speech makes me want to throw up my hands and say, "it's a tough life."
11:01PM, that's exactly my point. There ARE a lot of posts on the website that could potentially be illegal, but many of the posts that they cite in the complaint are not. For example, it's not illegal to express a desire to engage in certain acts with another adult.
Check out this exchange from the grades thread:
Anonymous said...
Also, Armen must be freaking out because of what's happening to Ciolli and the AutoAdmit gang. Remember that Ciolli's Edwards and Angels offer was rescinded because of posts on his blog. And now there's the Yale lawsuit. As a result, Armen is squelching perfectly legitimate, non-offensive posts. It sucks, but that's what happens when you're a paranoid, insecure J.D. worried about losing your $160K firm job in LA.
6/14/2007 6:12 PM
Armen said...
Partly true. When the rescinded offer story first broke, I definitely had some moments of thought. My firm is fairly aware of the blog. Hell they changed their OCIP routine because of the OCIP threads. But even with the firm, I stand by things I say. I don't use a screen name like Ciolli. But the way that whole thing has affected my thinking is more subtle. I've noticed a huge difference in quality of comments on blogs that strictly enforce civility requirements (Leiter or Volokh) compared to free-for-all anonymous sites like autoadmit. The bottom line is I don't want this site to turn into that. Yet all indications are it was/is(?) turning to that. Constant links to this blog on autoadmit, the predictable trolls, and so on. If you think my uneasiness with anonymous comments is anything new, I really assure you, it's not. Plus it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution. :)
6/14/2007 6:21 PM
Interesting insight into how this blog is run in the wake of the Auto Admit incident. Perhaps the "Rules of Engagement" for this blog need to be updated.
"Hi, my name is Armen and I'm a 1L at UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). And here are the rules of engagement of this blog.
1. Nothing is off limits. Anything I see or hear about Boalt, law schools, law, politics, or anything is fair game for this blog.
2. That's right, nothing is off-limits, i.e. if a classmate says something stupid in class, I will post it here.
2(a). Unless I get specific permission, I will not use your real name.
2(b). I allow public commentaries on all posts so that anyone can chime in about anything I have done that deserves public attention."
LOL
To the AutoAdmit Troll at 4:27,
It would be really lame if Armen's blog turned into an AutoAdmit-style cesspool. It would also be lame if Armen got an AutoRescind of his employment offer, like your hero Anthony Ciolli. The fact Armen is amending the Rules of Engagement shows he is not a complete dumbass like the average AutoAdmit poster.
He's not amending the Rules of Engagement. He's selectively and without warning deleting posts he doesn't like.
And being a supporter of free speech doesn't mean one is an XOXO troll.
Actually it kinda does. The reflexive ra ra free speech argument is what led to the garbage on autoadmit. You can support free speech all you want. In fact you can insult me or my co-bloggers in person. If you don't have the balls to do that, then I don't have to provide you this forum for it. I'm sticking to the civility requirement. If this affects you, in any way, then basically you're a coward who sits behind anonymity to hurl insults. Deal with it.
Oh and civility doesn't just extend to co-bloggers, but to anyone else, including visiting professors who teach Con Law here. Is that warning enough for you? Do you have notice?
Now shut the fuck up, I'm a hair trigger away from shutting down all comments. You want to start your own blog? Be my guest. I really don't need to take any crap from jerks like you. And yes, this is an example of how I'm permitted to say things that you (the anonymous cowards) are not permitted to say. Feel free to use this as the sample answer and outline of how not to post in the future.
talk about the pot calling the kettle black....
Example of criticism that makes me chuckle. No delete.
On the other hand, the two comments I deleted were (a) telling me to shut the fuck up and (b) telling VA to stop jerking off to a picture of his brother and start grading the exams. Now, WHO, exactly is taking issue with that? Step up.
I just checked out the Auto Admit site to see if people had cut out the crap after the lawsuit (they haven't) and I noticed one of the scumbag administrators (the one who wasn't named in the complaint) in an official response to the complaint quite unnecessarily named one of the Jane Does. I hadn't known the name of either of them but a quick google search of her name turned up all kinds of awful stuff I wouldn't have seen otherwise. These guys just don't know when to quit!
Armen:
I like your site better when you occasionally 'pre-process' anonymous commentators like this one. I don't want to listen to every single jackass, either. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home