I would hope they'd post where they plan on taking the bar so their potential clients can steer wide of them. They've exhibited behavior which is not only idiotic, but as near-lawyers we can hope to see their careers short circuited by disbarment, ethical lapses, malpractice and the like. Not even the BAD lawyers I know are this incredibly fucking stupid. And some of THEM are in prison.

See the problem, anonymous (if that is indeed your real name) is that making a test case is a wonderful thing. Activist lawyers are everywhere. But a lawyer who makes him or herself their own test case is dumber than a bucket of tampons. And if you're defending them then so are you.

Why don't you sue him?

First, your recent post is offensive and shows that you are disgustingly thoughtless. Second, try reading the legal document linked to, or try even a less careless reading Price's article.

Of course, given your attitude, maybe reading is too much to ask of you.

It can be done.

I worked for a semester at a community college as an adjunct. I did not have an office or a laptop. While there were computers in the classroom that I had access to, once the building I was teaching in closed down for the night, no access. Then tragedy struck. My home computer went down. So in the evening I would go to another building where a large, publicly available computer lab was. All students were required to sign in, but I simply smiled at the student at the sign in desk and walked by wearing my professor clothes and carrying my brief case. Thank God I had a computer available to me. No one questioned me.

Later on, when I was no longer working there, again I had computer problems. I put on my professional clothes and grabbed my empty briefcase and off I went to the campus computer lab, smiled, nodded. Never signed anything.

I wasn't up to no good. I just wanted to see if it can be done. It can be done.

Unless the plaintiffs' attorney already has a line on who is behind this stalking, they may be out of luck if this messages were posted in this way.

However, read the legal document. This may go beyond cyber-stalking to real life stalking. Someone posted when and where one of the plaintiffs would be at a gym and described her clothing and suggested raping her. In this case, she may have a case.

I can't not believe anyone is excusing what these "anonymous" stalkers actually said. Did you read the legal document? Free speech is not absolute. Anyone who thinks so is ignorant of the law.

People who think it is funny to joke about raping real humans and ecouraging others to rape said humans is not a free speech advocate but a sicko. Their politics are not liberal, conservative, or libertarian (perhaps anarchist), but surely enamored with a sort of perverts' Social Dawinism whereby anything goes so long as it is brutal.

Any site administrator who refuses a logical request to take down such messages is not much better.

and some pics may have been taken surreptitiously.

I think the pics were used in some sort of hot-or-not gallery of law students.

Or were all these offensive posts addressed to handles? Because as much as I'd gleefully sodomize with power tools some of the letter scribblers here, I doubt their handles identify them in any real way and so there's no actual harm or threat to them even if I said it out loud. I've received death threats on line and I don't pay it any mind - It's not as if you can look me up in the phone book. So if the women identified themselves in a real world way and now they piss and moan that the big bad peoples are saying nasty things about them, then who cares? Maybe the law students need to pull their heads out of their vaginas for a second and stop sniveling.

"These women surely must deserve at least some of the criticism lodged against them"

Often I find that women get out of hand and deserve to be threaened with anal sodomy, and sometimes even sodomized just to make a point.

Obviously, that is sarcasm.

I spend a lot of time on various message boards, political and sports mainly, and never cease to be amazed by the apparent lack of intelligence and basic human decency that seems to be over-taking our populace.

As a male lawyer, I would love to take those clowns depositions. It would also be great to get them in front of a jury so they explain their comments.

...this notion that the plaintiffs should be allowed to sue the forum administrator not because he has any legal liability but because he gives the lawyers "someone to go after" is chilling.

In your zeal to nail someone for the nasty things that anonymous posters have said, you are coming perilously close to advocating vigilante justice. Anyone writing for Salon should know better than this.

Besides being unseemly, the tactic endorsed by your note will only serve to feed the problem. Going after a forum administrator for comments posted by anonymous writers will only empower the writers and reinforce the notion that anonymity = immunity. On the other hand, unmasking the posters and holding them accountable will serve notice that you are responsible for what you say whether you use your own name, a fake name or no name at all. And isn't that the result you're looking for?

I'm being serious. I used to post on the (now defunct) Yahoo! message boards and ALL of the hate posts were from conservatives. Yes, the bastions of "moral values" had no problem calling for the deaths of gays (and accused them of creating some kind of molesting kids manifesto), complaining about too many blacks in the inner cities, and wanting to "hate fuck" Nancy Pelosi.

A previous conservative troll on here used the old "liberal double standard" when it came to free speech (you know the one, where we believe in free speech until you say something we don't want to hear). But of course the moment you question the Iraq war, Bush, or say so much as a cuss word, we all know how well they stand by their belief in it don't we? Maybe these people who are so concerned about "politcal correctness" (and you will never convince me it's a real issue) should go back and look at some of the "immoral" things their own have said. But of course that would mean facing their own hypocracy, wouldn't it?