GETTING HOTTER

It may be an appropriate reaction, on learning of this contest, to simply “roll your eyes,” as the authors of the blog suggested.  On reflection, though, it is worthwhile to ask if this was more than just a “sophomoric” prank.  There is plenty of evidence to show that more than thirty years after the beginning of the “Women’s Movement,” there is still confusion about how men and women are supposed to work together in a professional office.  What are the rules exactly?

Maureen Dowd, in her intriguing book Are Men Necessary? points out that there are some women who believe that sex, or at least sexual attraction, has a place in the workplace.  She quotes Helen Gurley Brown, once the editor of “Cosmopolitan,” as stating: “some of the best creative work ever to come out of offices I’ve worked in .  .  . has been produced by teams of men and women showing off for each other.  I think indeed we should come down hard on the bullies and the creeps but not go stamping out sexual chemistry at work.”

It is worth noting that the two anonymous bloggers at Skadden were confused by the note from the employment adviser which stated that they had not measured up to the firm’s values and standards of behavior.  Shortly after receiving the note, they wrote: “We’re not quite sure what Skadden’s ‘values’ are (or, for that matter, the Firm’s ‘standards of behavior’).  That sounds like an open-thread item if we’ve ever heard one.”

So, are there no rules or standards of behavior when it comes to unofficial office blogs?  The problem with any website or blog that doesn’t adhere to a prescribed set of standards is that it can degenerate into snarky, porn-like trash heap, or worse.

Consider what happened to the two women at Yale Law School who were victimized by anonymous bloggers and had to go to Federal Court in Connecticut to try and obtain some relief.  The on-line remarks included rank comments about the women’s appearance and threats of physical violence and rape.  The judge overseeing the case agreed to let the women proceed under pseudonyms, Doe I and Doe II, because of their fears of further harassment.

In her amended complaint, Doe I stated that in the summer of 2005, before starting law school classes, she learned from acquaintances that she was “the subject of a message thread on AutoAdmit.”  The message thread, entitled “Stupid Bitch to Attend Yale” contained a number of threats, usually of a sexual nature, and false claims, including the claim that she had a sexually transmitted disease.  One poster named “Spanky” said: “she deserves to be raped so that her little world can be shattered by real life.”  As the year progressed, there were additional postings, some stating that she had a lower LSAT score than she actually had, some falsely accusing her of bribing her way into Yale Law School, and some falsely stating that she had engaged in a lesbian affair with a Yale Law School official.  Doe I stated that the drumbeat of comments and threats “caused her severe emotional distress, interfered with her educational progress and damaged her reputation.”

Doe II stated that she was advised in February, 2007 that she was the subject of a thread on the AutoAdmit site.  The thread contained vulgar sexual statement and listed several links to photographs of Doe II on an internet social networking website.  She maintained that she wrote to the administrators of the site “multiple times” asking them to remove the thread, and noted that she was experiencing harm because of the postings.  She claimed that the only response she received was a threat to post any future requests on the AutoAdmit site.

According to the complaint, various AutoAdmit posters jointly started a website devoted to “rating” female law students from top law schools.  The organizers of the site apparently accepted nominations for attractive women at these law schools over a period of time and solicited nominations from other participants at Auto Admit.  Links were posted to webpages containing pictures of Doe II (alongside pornographic or other unflattering advertisements)  After these images were posted, threads began to appear on AutoAdmit regarding the law school contest and “crudely commenting on the individual women designated, including Doe II.”  Posters then began to issue threats against Doe II.  One poster gleefully exclaimed:  “I’m doing cartwheels knowing this stupid Jew bitch is getting her self esteem raped.”  Another poster—“Ugly Women”—stated:  “I hope she gets raped and dies.”  A poster named “AK47” wrote:  “Women named .  .  . [Doe II] should be raped.”

The two women tried to learn the identities of those hiding behind the anonymous pseudonyms.  Third-party subpoenas were served on AT&T for information pertaining to the identity of these individuals.  AK47 (without revealing his real name) filed a motion in district court to quash the subpoena, claiming that it violated “his First Amendment Right to speak anonymously.”  As AK47 stated:  “[The] Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on the AutoAdmit.com outweighs [the poster’s] right to speak anonymously.”

The decision is pending. - END -