Gasp or yawn. Your choice. You know, I've heard there's pornography on the web!
AND: You can't say I don't have the personal experience to know how the Yale law students and Feministe Jill feel. Check it out: They're talking about me too.
AND: I like this one: "someone email her this thread. I'm too much of a pussy to do it myself." See? They're a bunch of pussies!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
63 comments:
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591793&mc=16&forum_id=2
You're famous!
I just returned from your link, xoxohth, and copied this:
Author: hitlerhitlerhitler
for her age she's attractive. and for a law prof she's better than 75th %tile.
i'd rate her a 6.50-6.75. need a better picture to really judge though
You sure can attract an odd assortment of lunatics.
LOL Ann,
Those guys are certainly equal opportunity gawkers.
I'll say the same thing I said yesterday. While I feel sorry for you and the 1L, the lesson is that one needs to be careful about what personal info one puts up into the public domain. It is not fair, but it persists and can be misused.
You came out well, more compliments than insults. I'll bet you're secretly flattered.
*grins*
People shouldn't be surprised.
When one openly deposits one's life in the public sphere via blogging, social networking sites, and photo sharing sites, one should should not be astonished to find that one's life has gotten away from oneself.
No different than going to a nude beach and acting surprised that others see you naked
"And middle-aged Big Law attorneys may not be the most savvy people in the world when it comes to internet communities."
Yes, that's probably correct; but then why isn't she astute enough to organize her life to minimize the prospective liabilities of internet communities? She is, of course, free to live her life and use her time as she wishes; the toads she complains about are certainly obnoxious, but all choices have consequences, many of which are unknown but some are predictable. Being a feminist with a blog, one might think her more sensitive to the notion of sexual exploitation, and the ease in which the internet lends itself to amplifying those issues, so why is she so adamant about putting herself in a vulnerable place?
The internet is full of these kinds of websites, pictures and commentary; it is also full of adolescent and post-adolescents disclosing all kinds of personal details; it is impossible for a regular person to regulate except what they post of themselves. I'm sorry if it can't help sounding like the old "blame the rape victim," but I think she hasn't thought this out especially well. It's not like she should expect middle-aged Big Law attorneys to be the most savvy people in the world when it comes to internet communities heavily populated by teens, college students and young adults; nor would the average client of Big Law firms be the most savvy people in the world when it comes to these same internet communities. Why would any Big Law firm take that chance, now?
Secretly flattered?
I posted the link, didn't I? I own up to what I suspected the law students of. Except the part about demanding sympathy. I don't. Actually, it strikes me as funny. And I suspect the guys there are very young, perhaps only 13 or so. Do you think they're especially attractive and enjoying active sexual relationships? We know they have a relationship with their keyboard.
And Kevin is right. If I ever put up a photograph of myself on the web, it is with the complete expectation that people will comment on my appearance. I'd be a fool not to know that. I'm not saying that makes the "massive toilet" peachy. I'm just saying, if you don't like the toilet, don't go to the toilet.
Oh, but aren't those boys terrible? says the "feminist." Let me just quote my mother: "You're only encouraging them."
The Emperess has no clothes.
It's that damned vortex, isn't it?
Jill from Feministe wants to control how people react to the pictures she posted, demanding they be appreciated only in the way a feminist would appreciate the beauty of a woman in a gown or swimsuit.
This is so obviously unlikely as to make me wonder whether her planet has a blue sky and gravity. Men getting together and crudely discussing a woman's looks? It cannot be!
21st century Americans lacking any sense of propriety or shame about women, treating them as objects, almost as if they could watch Girls Gone Wild or porn or internet sex anytime they want, as if there were no boundaries to behavior at all? Impossible!
Wherever did people ever get the idea that sexual behavior can be completely without consequences? I mean, besides Rousseau and Marx, Shulamith Firestone, the SDS and the Weathermen, Jagger, the Go-Go's, and Fifty cent? Seriously man, where'd guys pick this stuff up?
It is to some extent her fault for having all of the pictures up in the first place. At the same time, it is also wrong for these kids to show such disrespect.
She can also take action. If I were her, I would start trying to track these kids down and threaten legal action - regardless of whether a possible legal action exists or not. 99% of the idiots out there posting stuff like this will succomb to even minor threats.
Impressive. It makes me curious about the level of discourse at the less "prestigious law school admissions discussion boards".
Pogo-
Human nature is perfectable- Karl Marx said so!
Speaking of good names for blogs:
"Scummy law school sleazebags"
When all this dies down we need to revisit and discuss "environmentally-friendly feminist clothing".
Feministe: What is exploitative is to use someone else’s pictures in a contest that they haven’t consented to, which can have negative consequences on their careers. I emailed the contest site owners (who are anonymous, naturally) and asked to be taken out of the contest. They didn’t even bother to respond — except by posting a clarification on the contest site that they would not be taking down any pictures until after the contest was over.
I agree with her. Its bad enough that they used her pictures out of context without her permission, whats worse is that they refused to yank them down when she tried to opt out of their silly contest.
Reminds me of the fake photoshop of Malkin in a bikini on spring break that some feminist site had linked to. Wonkette too, and the comments there was just as leacherous. I don't see a search function on Jill's blog, and I'm wondering how she responded to that indcident.
JohnK is 100% correct.
Is Althouse guilty of the same thing? Is she more or less admitting so without saying it by the existence of this post. Maybe, maybe not...but if I was "hot" I would be also be posting my pictures. It's human nature to desire compliments and any way you can get them. Why else does an artist desire that his or her works be viewed.
Jill seems incredibly naive. Puts photos on the internet and doesn't realize they might be used for purposes she didn't consider.
And she should be hired by a law firm why, exactly?
Sure, but twist it around: Your son is a US Marine who lost his leg to an IED. Sheehan downloads his photo and plasters it across a banner at a protest, subtitled: "Maimed for a Lie" [as per Code Pink].
Some of my fondest moments have been spent reading the pornographic poetry, and scatological commentary, on Mens Bathroom walls....(When nobody was in there).
I saw Jill's name, measurements, all over the walls.
It was very thrilling and titillating to me.
Peace, Maxine
I'm serious.
If you really want to gauge the character of law students....visit the Men's Bathrooms of various schools, and give a look at the prose on the bathroom walls.
You learn quite a bit about the caliber of the students.
For instance: at UW, I've heard Ann's name is scribbled all over the Men's bathroom walls, and not in pen either.
---amidst the glory holes and used tissues.
Nothing like Law School men's rooms !
Peace, Maxine
a picture of me in a bathing suit
..Thus Spake Jill.
I love that phrase 'bathing suit' - haven't heard it for decades.
Curiously, a Google search 'Althouse + suit + bathing' reveals several thousand options, whilst the more specific 'Althouse + "bathing suit"' still lists over five hundred.
But it's late in the day and I'm too weary from work to go through all the links, so if Ann wants me to see a photo of her in a bikini she's just going to have to post one on here ;-)
if you don't like the toilet, don't go to the toilet.
Thus Spake Ann
There's a 'kitchen', 'hot', 'leave' thing I like about that, but before I go throwing it at my adversaries as the new putdown, I need to explore the consequences of the image a bit further.
Hmmmm....yes I can avoid the kitchen by having someone else cook for me but... Well there it somewhat falls down.
Actually though, it's the very logical fallibility of the concept that lends it a certain charm. I shall use it at once!
So come on Jill. You're American. You're a lawyer. Advise yourself to sue someone. There are millions to be made.
I do have a layman's question re internet and privacy--What is the state of law with respect to the internet? Is the medium too new for settled law to evolve? I hear folks tossing around a whole bunch of legal terms. Help!
I agree with Quimby.
I've got some photographs up on the internet, and I belong to some peer networks. But a photograph of you and your friends is innocent. If people started to leave me all sorts of disturbing messages and commented on my appearance on a website where I couldn't edit or remove those comments, I would feel violated.
Judging by how Professor Althouse reacted to people impersonating her this fall, it appears as if she can't take the heat, yet won't leave the kitchen.
Don't judge others for feeling the same way.
Nowadays nothing really happens unless you capture it on film/tape/video, etc. Better yet post it on the web somewhere. Gee I went to the beach, see the pics!
Too much information really, about everyone. Reminds me of the decline of Olympic television coverage when they started all the Up Close and Personal crap about some weightlifter from Bulgaria, ad naseum.
People do stuff all the time, some small fraction of it is marginally interesting, very little of it is very interesting to anyone other than a mother, grandmother or best friend. Yet because of technolgy we all feel we have to be a star of our own movie.
Do something important first.
Althouse, are you sure that you, a law professor, are allowed to use the word "pussy" to describe your adversaries?
Seriously, though, Althouse - I'd like to get your thoughts on how this ties in to the celebrity-watching culture. All the people who are creeped out about the guys in the gym snapping camera phone pictures of these gals - are you okay with the celebrity stalkers contantly photographing people on the beach, at Starbucks, at the gym, etc.? You might argue that the difference is that the celebrities chose to be famous, but can you seriously say that someone who has a bit part in a t.v. show made the same "deal with the devil" that a Brad Pitt or Anna Nicole Smith made (i.e. incredible amounts of money in exchange for no privacy)?
And Althouse, do you think we're all just going to have to put up with the fact that this is, how the culture is, and we should all expect to be treated like rock stars? (and if so, how does that tie into the using-your-name thread?)
JohnK -
Sometimes, you get hit by a car on your walk home from you work and you die. Sorry! Sometimes life is like that. If you don't want to take that risk then don't cross the street
johnk, what if it isn't your choice? What if you posed for pictures on a fraternity road trip in college, and some of those friends have Flickr accounts you don't know about? Are we supposed to be able to demand that our friends take down photos of us? And if they don't, then how is it our fault?
Its awfullly easy for Professor Althouse to criticize women for doing this.
Believe it or not, in most occupations you can't write three good articles, get tenure and then draw paychecks for the rest of your life.
And Kevin is right. If I ever put up a photograph of myself on the web, it is with the complete expectation that people will comment on my appearance.
You should be able to see my current photo if you try to leave a comment here. I was a bit more identifiable in my last one, showing me skiing up to a cabin with the Canadian Rockies in the background. I like this one better. Yes, it is I, just upside down and up close.
I did enjoy looking at the photos of the commenters here. I need one like Wade's. But as an IP attorney, I am reluctant to just "borrow" one. And I haven't looked that good for at least 25 years (if I ever did, which is debatable).
Posting anything from commentary to a picture in a publicly accessible place is not a good idea for anyone who will not like it when others use it in ways they had not intended. That holds true for Jill, Ann, me, and everyone else commenting here.
Jill apparently prefers to live in a dream world where she dictate how others act. Life doesn't work that way. What those guys have done is definitely sleazy and, I think, completely over-the-line. (It is one thing to make sleazy comments about anonymous pictures, it is definitely another thing to identify the person, their address and telephone number.) In a free country, they have a right to be bastards and idiots, and Jill has the right to damn their actions, and seek legal remedies for those actions, if available and she so chooses.
That someone has been running around the internet pretending to be Ann should not surprise her, either. Like it or not, she is a public figure now. Tens of thousands know who she is, or think they do, because they have read her public blog, her public writings, or criticism of the same. Thus, Ann can complain about the phony comments others are making, the sexist, vulgar, and mean characterizations, as well as the misrepresentations of her writings, but she really should not be surprised that such things happen. I doubt she is but I don't know for sure.
I'm relatively unknown and I've had people imitate me (why I don't know). A picture of myself that I posted a few years ago now graces no less than 5 sex sites (the kind with personals) without my permission. (A friend trolling one site found "me" and sent me the link.) As the operators of the sites were the same, well-hidden and located in Europe, it was impossible to get them to remove the pictures. I don't like it one bit but there doesn't seem to be anything to do about it so I just ignore it.
I'm feeling Violated !!!!
And, my feelings are being hurt.
Really now. Since when is going to the gym a necessity? Prancing around in a tight leotard etc..
Can't Jill just use a Thighmaster in the privacy of her own bedroom?
Peace, Maxine
mellow-drama - That is a problem, isn't it? Your friends post pictures without permission, someone "borrows" them for a "contest" without permission, and then there is no way to get them back.
Moral: Know your friends. Tell them not to post your pictures. Too hard? Then get new friends or break their camera. Anyway, many photo upload sites allow users to lock their photos from public view. Only the user and the user'a authorized friends can view. That is probably the best solution under the cicumstances.
Even if she posted some photographs on line, that's no defense against having her photo taken in the locker room of a gym.
Ann says that we're supposed to EXPECT that that could happen. I disagree. It is a tort. It is a crime. Being run over by a drunk driver is also a tort and a crime, and we don't expect that to happen. We know that it could POSSIBLY happen, but that doesn't we forego our right to a remedy every time we cross the street.
Wade: if it is a crime - so what? Are we supposed to naively believe that because something is a crime it will never happen on the internet? Internet crimes happen every minute. Are we supposed to preempt crimes on the internet? How do you propose to do that?
Are you upset that not that many people are outraged such a thing as what happened to Jill has happened? Gee, Wade, did you just get your first computer yesterday? (I think not.) This kind of crap has been happening for years Wade. Jill isn't the first - wont be the last. Am I supposed to drop everything I am doing and go on a campaign on her behalf? No, I don't think so. Almost everyone here agrees - very sleazy stuff. Too bad it happened. Wish it wasn't like that but it is. Lesson learned, if not learned before. Time to move on. Not much else to say or do.
Unfortunately, experience dictates that we all should expect the worst on the internet and behave accordingly
Internet Ronin, I disagree with your solution. The solution is - ignore the bastards who appropriate your photo for their evil means.
I get it, Althouse, why you brought this up in conjunction with the users posting comments in your name. Your point is that it's far more damaging to one's reputation to have words one didn't write attributed to you, than it is to have idiots talking about you. (Expansion on this thought here.)
Do I get a gold star?
But Althouse, I'm still interested in your solution: Do we just have to put up with it in our no-privacy culture?
"Jill apparently prefers to live in a dream world where she dictate how others act."
...otherwise known as the feminist left.
I'm reminded of an article about a womyn's music festival in Michigan or Wisconsin. The author of the piece described a riot grrrl concert with a mosh pit (I use the tem loosely). Apparently various womyn would rush up to the microphone (during the music) and shout 'rules' for the pit (no pushing, etc). This happened repeatedly and I'm assuming to little effect.
The notion that one could dictate behavior this way is amusing at best. A mosh pit will have loose standards of behavior which are enforced by general cosensus, not by some empowered grrrl dictating her rules to everyone else. If a guy had tried that he would have been ignored, laughed at, or beaten up (depending on the crowd).
I somehow doubt that the blogospher is much different.
PS- Why would a feminist expect any kind of chivalry from men?
And what about the commenters on the AutoAdmit board who suggested that people covertly snap pictures of women in various public places?
Incredibly sleazy but nothing new - people have been taking unauthorized pix through peepholes for decades - and trading them with others. The internet jsut makes it all easier and more "public."
One advantage of the public aspect is that, as Wade says, it is undoubtedly a crime. So report them to the authorities. If they are conspiring to commit a crime, charge them. If they actually committed a crime, charge them. IF and when they are prosecuted, publicize it. If convicted, publicize THAT.
Not much else we can do, is there?
It seems to me that, as the host of all this garbage is now aware of what is happening there, they cannot plead ignorance, which I think would cause them some difficulty in a court of law should someone wish to take action against them.
Internet Ronin: "A picture of myself that I posted a few years ago now graces no less than 5 sex sites..."
So you're telling us you're good-looking, then. Pissed, but also good-looking.
Anyway, I wish people would stop saying I'm blaming Jill or whatever. I'm not saying the women did something wrong. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying there are ways to minimize dangers, and dangers that you see and decide to risk. There are harms for which you pursue remedies and harms that you blow off. I'm just recommending being sane and reasonable about what you do when other people wrong you.
There's a street I need to cross every day going back and forth to my parking garage. I see people run the red light all the time. They are wrong. It bugs me. But one thing I do is watch and wait until I'm sure the cars have stopped. That doesn't make them less wrong.
I do agree, mellow-drama, but so many people are unwilling to do that, including our host. That is what I chose to do about my own problem with this kind of thing a couple of years ago. Hadn't even seriously thought about it again until today. (And just went to check and see if "I" am still there - and, yes, "I" am, or at least on one of the sites so I assume it is true for all of them.)
No Ann, that is the funny thing! I would say I'm a bit above average, maybe ;-)The photo (fully clothed) wasn't particularly good, in fact. Which is whay the whole thing was so mystifying.
As for the rest of your comment - I see we agree. I thought we did.
site owners cannot be held responsible for the postings of commenters.
Like you, I wonder if that holds true if they KNOW of the existence of the comments and still refuse to take appropriate action?
And yes, site operators regularly provide all requested private information about their customers when subpeaoned.
We have way too many confusing questions and issues floating around here.
Should I expect a right to privacy for images of myself I post in a public forum?
Should I expect a right to privacy for images of myself taken by others with my consent to be posted by those others to a public forum?
Do I have a right not to have images taken of myself without my consent?
Do I have a right not to have images of myself taken without my consent posted to a public forum?
Part of this is consent and identification.
If I take a picture that includes images of things and people and do not identify the people should I post that image in a public forum? Ann has done so (once she had declared permission of the individual to post the image, other times she has not said one way or the other, and has never, to the best of my knowledge, identified anyone other than close friends and family), what becomes of the rights to that image then?
Does this more concern the identification of the image than the image itself?
Would it make a difference if AutoAdmit had said crude things about ‘the third blonde from the left’, as opposed to naming her?
The whole crux of the matter is personal identification, and it was self identification that has caused Jill’s problems. No one pulled this anonymous image from a college yearbook; it was pulled form her website where she had all of her identifying information. This is why I lack some initial sympathy.
Where my feelings shift is the suggested stalking. I don’t care if the perverts on this site pull posted images and verbally masturbate over them, but encouraging the stalking of any individual is over the line whether the images are from the gym, the street or the classroom.
seven - personal ads for sex on sites like that use a nickname for their members. All one has to do is search the site by that name. In this case, someone used a screen name that I once used on a bulletin board about investments. Guess they didn't like my opinions ;-)
Seven - forgot to add this: I don't (keep track of it). I prefer NOT to think about the whole damn thing and am beginning to wish now I had not brought it up here.
Internet Ronin - Once again, you're entirely missing the point. All I'm saying is that she's right to be pissed off about it. Its her blog, she can make pissed-off posts if she wants to.
And the newspaper articles were written in large part to warn others.
All sorts of bloggers have read about it and used it as an opportunity to pile on. To me, that reeks of sexism. Are you telling me you wouldn't get pissed about this if it happened to you?
No Wade, that is obviously NOT waht I said. How you can think that is wht I said is not worth trying to figure out at the moment.
She has a right to her opinion. She has a right to express it. She has a right to say anything she wants (and pay a price if something she says is actionable). I support her rights. I have a right to comment on her public statements. So do others.
You seem to skip comments if you failed to understand that. In fact, given your last question, I am pretty sure you do. I answered that question a long time ago on this thread. Probably explains why you don't understand Ann Althouse's opinion either.
Folks, this isn't some weird hypothetical where some innocent person was suddenly picked on. Jill writes an intimate blog and has heavily promoted herself, making herself a public figure, and now complains when things haven't gone by her script. Well duh.
This is more than a bit like politicians whining when someone digs up dirt on them. Or movie stars for that matter.
Before anyone responds with another stupid hypothetical, remember that she wasn't picked at random; she MADE HERSELF A PUBLIC FIGURE.
Meanwhile, in a similar vein:
Porn Free
Left-wing blogs gleefully outed my gay porn past after I criticized antiwar zealots. But the truth has set me free.
She can also take action. If I were her, I would start trying to track these kids down and threaten legal action - regardless of whether a possible legal action exists or not.
That's a good way to get disbarred. Hopefully the women in question are smarter than that.
You can't sue somebody for saying you've got great tits and he wants to ejaculate on them, unless you work for him. Crude behavior is not a tort.
Even if she posted some photographs on line, that's no defense against having her photo taken in the locker room of a gym.
It is a given that photographing someone in the locker room at the gym is indefensible.
But, um, who exactly did this happen to? The article says "she now fears going to the gym because people on the site encouraged classmates to take cellphone pictures of her". No mention of any photos actually BEING taken, and no mention of the locker room. How the heck would men even get into the women's locker room at the gym anyway?
There are few things more pathetic than watching people like Jill raging against the falling rain and the blowing wind.
Internet Ronin and Revenant have precisely identified the underlying way things are in the world. As much as Jill wishes it were otherwise, she'll sooner have a pony and free ice cream forever. Joe and Theo suggested ways to benefit from her error.
The hardest part for some folks to abide here are that the sleazy guys involved are in fact wrong and blameworthy, and yet nothing bad will happen to them for all this. I hope she shakes it off, thinks lesson learned and either moves on or decides to use her experience to help someone else.
Pogo said...
21st century Americans lacking any sense of propriety or shame about women, treating them as objects, almost as if they could watch Girls Gone Wild or porn or internet sex anytime they want, as if there were no boundaries to behavior at all? Impossible!
Pogo, wake up my man, your comment was so, so 20th century. In the 21st, the women are also objectifying men and talking about them lewdly in the locker room. Note Sex in the City, or Desperate Housewives, etc.
Maybe its just because I've read 19th, 18th, and 17th century porn, but I don't see how men are viewing women as sex objects any more now than we did then. We're just actually ADMITTING to it now.
What's new is men treating women as actual people, rather than as convenient combined baby-factory/chefs.
Re: "We're just actually ADMITTING to it now."
I submit you are correct. My quarrel is over whether Jill's predicament is worth the loss of that hidden, more furtive approach, one marked by shame and religious proscription.
Some find such lack of restraint jes' fine, wonderful even; others, not so much. That is, embarrassment can be useful, at a societal level.
The hardest part for some folks to abide here are that the sleazy guys involved are in fact wrong and blameworthy, and yet nothing bad will happen to them for all this. I hope she shakes it off, thinks lesson learned and either moves on or decides to use her experience to help someone else.
The irony is that Jill's reaction to this may affect her employment ops more than the scummy law school sleazebags. Some employers may wonder if she's just another walking sexual discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen, and take a pass on that risk.
My quarrel is over whether Jill's predicament is worth the loss of that hidden, more furtive approach, one marked by shame and religious proscription.
That "furtive approach" was, I think, a late-19ths/early-20th century historical anomaly. Heck, even Shakespeare was deemed too bawdy for public consumption for most of that period.
SM's comment intrigued me, because some of those comments are incredibly vile. "Dorking around"? These guys have totally degenerated into animals. I think this is another symptom of anonymity (or perceived anonymity, anyway) and it is a little bit scary to see what happens when people aren't going to be held responsible for what they say.
Not that I'm advocating not letting them say it; I just don't like what I see.
Post a Comment