Freedom of speech or eHarassing?

Autoadmit.com, the internet messageboard notorious for its racist trolls, prestige-whoring, and the Boalt student who made a fake threat against UC-Hastings (who, incidentally, is rumored NOT to have been expelled), is now at the forefront of the debate over how far the limits anonymous internet speech run. Brief back-story (as far as I can tell): Anonymous posters on AutoAdmit began harassing a few female law students. They posted their full names and contact information, photos of them, making obscene comments about their physical appearance, making indirect threats against them, and generally trying to smear their reputations through "Google-bombing."

The women, with the help of elite Bay-Area law firm Keker & Van Nest, filed a lawsuit against the administrator of the site (who later had his law firm job offer revoked) and the anonymous posters. The problem? That the anonymous posters were, well, anonymous. To obtain the identities of the posters, they issued subpoenas to the ISPs seeking the posters' IP addresses.

One of the posters ("John Doe 21") has responded, and argues that his First Amendment right to speak anonymously outweighs the plaintiffs' right to obtain his identity in order to pursue their claims against him. The brief is available here. There is much speculation as to whether the plaintiff is a law student -- the brief is on one hand quite in-depth and earnest, yet also somewhat unsophisticated, contains typos, and generally comes across a amateurish. Take, for example, John Doe 21's sarcastic remark about the timeframe for his reply:

The Subpoena states that John Doe 21 has 10 days in which to prepare a motion to quash... Apparently, 10 days is enough time for John Doe 21 to prepare a motion concerning an area of law with which he has never dealt and concerning a multitude of federal procedural issues that only experienced litigators such as Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to navigate.

The case does raise some interesting issues. How far should the First Amendment extend to protect anonymous internet speech? Should people be allowed to post information about a law student's identity using publicly available information and photos? What about Google-bombing to associate an individual with negative posts?

I'm still forming my opinion. I think the most difficult thing about the issue is that the Internet is an entirely new ballgame. I wouldn't be too concerned if someone wanted to stand in the middle of the street and broadcast negative information about an individual (even if they did so anonymously). But information disseminated on the Internet stays there pretty much forever and is accessible by absolutely everyone. In any event, I wouldn't feel too bad if "John Doe 21" and his brethren were outted. In fact, perhaps that should be the entire remedy -- out the offenders and have their reputation ruined (I suspect that was largely the goal of the lawsuit in the first place).

Sneak Preview

An interesting factoid about the BBB: Future BBBs are available by entering the date of the BBB at the end of the url, after "http://www.law.berkeley.edu/students/services/bbb/bbb.php?date=" in the form "mm-dd-yyyy". For example, next week's BBB is already available (minus the "Announcements" section) here.

In other news, final exam schedules should be available no earlier than the first week of March, per Student Services.

Last, feel free to discuss class ranks in this thread. I honestly don't think it violates the "Honor Code," which prohibits disclosure of class rank "for any professional purpose other than obtaining a judicial clerkship or academic position." Anonymous discussions about class rank don't really qualify as a "disclosure" in the way the Academic Rules use the term. But even so, a discussion on class rank is useful to those applying for clerkships, and therefore any "disclosure" is for the purpose of obtaining a judicial clerkship/academic position.

Breaking News: Edley Hearts Boalt

A source close to the administration has passed along an email from Dean Edley. The email, sent to Boalt staff, reads in its entirety:


Dear Colleagues:

Paralleling the pace of the presidential campaign, the frequency of questions - or innuendos - I hear about my career plans is climbing. I write to share my thinking.

My term as dean ends in 16 months, so that next academic year would ordinarily be the time to conduct a search. A few weeks ago, however, I accepted Provost Breslauer's invitation to start the performance review process required to continue beyond my five-year term as dean. The first step is for me to write a self-evaluation, which the Provost will share with members of our community for comment. At some point he will appoint a secret committee. There will be more discussion. Still later, there will be smoke. I suppose.

What about, uh, external developments? Force majeure? People don't quite believe me when I explain that I have no Potomac Fever. I had richly satisfying tours of duty on the Carter and Clinton White House staffs, and have had entirely too much experience in national politics. I dislike political campaigns, and have been drawn into a limited role in the Obama campaign purely by the accident of being his friend and former teacher.

To the point: If Obama is elected, I will not seek a position. I have already told him so and chatted with him about how I might be helpful without leaving Berkeley. (I believe it is implausible, though not logically impossible, that he would try to draft me for something.) If my wife gets an offer she can't refuse from a new Administration, her sisters in Los Angeles have developed a contingency plan. Maria would commute from D.C., and one of her sisters would move here to help me with our kids. Two of the sisters have offered.

I have fallen completely and totally in love with Berkeley and Boalt. Just no other way to say it. I imagine finishing out my career here. I look forward to life on the faculty teaching, writing, the Warren Institute, sailing. We love our house, our colleagues, our friends; the weather's not bad, and the earthquakes no longer give me nightmares.

And, like the faculty and staff, all the students are above average.

-----
Christopher Edley, Jr.
Dean and Orrick Professor of Law
Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley


Well folks, there you have it. Dean Edley is not only staying, he plans to "finish out" his career here. A little surprising, given that Edley sightings at Boalt are more rare than Registrar sightings after 4pm. I'm not sure whether we should be rejoicing or a little worried that a Dean with such little presence at our school is going to be with us for many years to come. One also must wonder when he's planning on telling students. Maybe right after he gets around to telling us that our school's name has been changed from "Boalt" to "Berkeley Law"....

Rank you very much

Updated class ranks for the Classes of 2008 and 2009 are now available, per an email from Dean O. Shockingly, it's well in advance of the stated March deadline!

While I appreciate Boalt's de-emphasis on grades and class rank, there's no denying that grades are important for certain jobs. I'm not advocating that Boalt change its grading system or allow students to disclose class rank for most purposes -- I think those policies are important to maintaining Boalt's non-competitive character and forcing employers to look beyond numbers on a resume. But students shouldn't be ostracized and sneered at for wanting to know where they stand when, in fact, it matters.

9th Circuit Day Wrap-Up

The highlight of 9th Circuit Day was Fajita-gate, a § 1983 suit involving the conduct of three off-duty police officers during an altercation over a bag of steak fajitas. One of the officers involved in the carnal mêlée was Alex Fagan, Jr., who was arrested a few years ago following a brawl with his father, former Police Chief Alex Fagan Sr.

A very nervous attorney for the plaintiff-appellants argued that the City and County of San Francisco should be held liable for the officers’ off-duty conduct because their on-duty (mis)conduct should have put the Department on notice that their off-duty violence was foreseeable. Counsel fervently argued that since we allow people to vote for an elect a president, we should also allow them to decide whether there’s a causal relationship between a departmental custom and what the officers did. Or something.

Throughout the proceedings Judge Bybee appeared serious, Thomas was his usual thoughtful yet lighthearted self, and Judge Noonan looked a little out of it. (But really, who's to blame him after sitting through Research Corp. v. Westport Ins. Corp.?)

Welcome to the New Boalt Blog!

Welcome to the newest addition to the Boalt blogging community. This blog is devoted to discussion on topics relevant to the Boalt, Berkeley, and law student communities. It is intended to be a more relevant and free-speech-friendly alternative to our esteemed neighbor, Nuts & Boalts .

Currently, we're taking suggestions on a catchy name that has the pizazz of "Nuts and Boalts," but that isn't, well, Nuts and Boalts.