The AutoAdmit Lawsuit

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Miriam Cherry says:

    Congrats (a little early) on this new book, Dan! I’ll look forward to it when it is out.

  2. Guest says:

    You have to feel bad for Ciolli. Hi was an admirable goal – to provide a free public forum where participants could speak openly and honestly about any topic (especially law-related topics). It seems strang that merely because he provides a public forum for speech that he should be under any duty to moderate or censor that speech; that would impose upon him fiduciary duties with regards to people he’s never met.

    Additionally, due to the inherently difficult nature of internet moderation (there are an awful lot of ‘offensive’ posts on many, many discussion boards), Ciolli would need a team of mods working nearly round-the-clock. Clearly such a system would stifle the free flow of information on the board. First, it be incredibly difficult for Ciolli (or anyone else) to promulgate clear, unambiguous rules w/r/t which speech should be moderated (unprotected) and which should not. If the site owners could face potential liability, this would naturally lead to a suppression of a great deal more speech than necessary. Furthermore, it would create a situation where the protection of participants’ speech would be at the whim of whatever moderators were on the clock at that given time. Disagree with a mod, and face the possibility of having your posts deleted.

    The moderated system is in place at another popular law school discussion site, lawschooldiscussion.org. The discussions on that site are not nearly as rich and in depth, and as a result the amount of information that pre-laws, current students, and practicing attys can glean from the site is almost de minimis. Who wants to post on a site where one can be censored for disagreeing with a mod that a 3.x gpa will not get one an offer at firm y? What’s the use?

    Autoadmit was and is filthy; its posters make nasty, sometimes defamatory contents. This is true. But in terms of the amount of law school related information, the site is second to none, and it’s efforts to centralize such info is unprecedented and commendable. Ciolli has provided a great service to law students and pre-laws; it would be an injustice if he were to face legal liability because he failed to act like anyone’s mother.

  3. Guest #2 says:

    Autoadmit mostly has misinformation, which is why most law students I know use lawschooldiscussion.org or one of the other prelaw sites that have moderators. As to Ciolli, it seems that whenever someone complained to him that they were being defamed or threatened with rape, he blew them off. What goes around comes around.

  4. WAL says:

    Autoadmit can be very crass and incredibly offensive, but it was miles ahead of lawschooldiscussion.org in providing useful information. It’s on lawschooldiscussion.org where I’ve seen actual arguments with posters disputing the fact a person will have an incredibly hard time finding a job from a fourth tier school. It is on lawschooldiscussion where somebody will invariably tell an applicant not to give up hope and try applying to schools they have no chance of getting into. Doing that may keep people’s feelings from getting hurt in the short-run, but I prefer the AutoAdmit approach where you can expect people to be blunt and, if they aren’t, other posters to come in, say it’s bull, and correct them.

    AutoAdmit also has grown to the point where it has some posters who are already in private practice and are able to talk about firms and, when I posted there (I’ll admit it’s been awhile), was probably a better place than any I had available to me in law school or on the internet to get a political debate going (not just a discussion, where you limited yourself to what won’t anger the professor, but a real full-fledged debate).

    I’ll admit Ciolli and Cohen are probably dicks for not just deleting the freakin’ thread, but as a source of information during law school AutoAdmit easily outdid any of its competitors.

  5. Michael Lee says:

    Viva la AutoAdmit.

    I was sued a few years ago for defamation. The suit was little more than opportunistic money grab.

    I prevailed of course, but wasted three years of my life doing so.

    The standard of review for defamation should be very rigid. Not because it is a trumped up tort but because most of the complaints are trumped up.

    Michael Lee

  6. Michael Lee says:

    Viva la AutoAdmit.

    I was sued a few years ago for defamation. The suit was little more than opportunistic money grab.

    I prevailed of course, but wasted three years of my life doing so.

    The standard of review for defamation should be very rigid. Not because it is a trumped up tort but because most of the complaints are trumped up.

    Michael Lee