The internet is the place where people say anything, a lot of is unpleasant

(written by Lawrence Krubner, however indented passages are often quotes)

From Wikipedia:

The message board, which bills itself as “the most prestigious admissions board in the world,” has drawn the attention and criticism of some in the legal community and the media, most notably the Wall Street Journal, and National Public Radio for its lack of moderation of offensive and defamatory content.

Also:

On March 11, 2005 Brian Leiter of the University of Texas at Austin accused AutoAdmit of being “a massive forum for bizarre racist, anti-semitic, and viciously sexist postings, mixed in with posts genuinely related to law school” on his blog.[3] This provoked the AutoAdmit administrators to suggest that Leiter had “proactively searched” for lewd content on the website.

The site is thick with misogyny:

Anonymous speech and harassment

On March 1, 2007, ABC News profiled two Yale Law School students, who alleged that harassing and defamatory comments had been posted about them on AutoAdmit.[7] On March 7, 2007, the Washington Post published a front-page article featuring AutoAdmit that reported similar allegations and raised questions regarding freedom of speech and anonymity. [8] On 19 March 2007, a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “Trash Talk” by Elizabeth Wurtzel criticized the AutoAdmit law message board as a forum of “mean-spirited” gossip.[13]

The sudden publicity sparked a flurry of debate as well as a new wave of harassment and threats against the Yale Law School students, including an incident that led Anthony Ciolli, a third year law student at the University of Pennsylvania and one of AutoAdmit’s administrators, to resign.[9] The law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge revoked an offer of employment to Ciolli; Charles DeWitt, managing partner at the firm’s Boston office, explained to Ciolli via private correspondence, “We expect any lawyer affiliated with our firm, when presented with the kind of language exhibited on the message board, to reject it and to disavow any affiliation with it. You, instead, facilitated the expression and publication of such language.”[10]

Deans from Yale Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School condemned the misogynistic and defamatory postings on AutoAdmit.[11] Others have noted that this behavior is so unethical as to jeopardize one’s prospects for bar admission and employment. Brad Wendel, a legal ethics professor at Cornell Law School, wrote, “If I were one of the students who made some of the worst of these comments, I’d be sweating bullets right now.”[12][13]

On June 12, 2007, the two Yale students who were allegedly harassed filed a lawsuit against Anthony Ciolli and a number of Autoadmit’s anonymous posters, claiming their “character, intelligence, appearance and sexual lives have been thoroughly trashed by the defendants”[14]. Filed in the District Court of Connecticut, the case, Doe v. Ciolli, 307CV00909 CFD, cites violation of privacy, defamation, infliction of undue emotional distress, and copyright infringement against Ciolli and several anonymous posters. The two plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, David Rosen, a Yale Law School professor, and Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in computer and internet law.[14] While AutoAdmit’s reported lack of IP logging may prevent the plaintiffs from ever learning the defendants’ true identities, the case could prove to be very significant within computer and internet law if it does make it to trial.[15] The plaintiffs subsequently dropped Ciolli’s name from the list of defendants,[16] and successfully obtained Doe subpoenas of Internet service providers in hopes of identifying the anonymous defendants.[17] The attorneys have now discovered the names of some, but not all, of the offending posters. [18]

In March 2008, Anthony Ciolli filed his own suit against Heide Iravani, Brittan Heller, Ross Chanin, Reputation Defender, the law firm of Keker & Van Nest, as well as lawyer David Rosen and law professor Mark Lemley. Yale Daily News Article and Complaint in Ciolli v. Iravani et al. Amongst other claims, Ciolli alleges slander, libel, and abuse of process, due to extensions of service. In March 2009, the court dismissed Brittan Heller from the suit because Ciolli never served her.

To get a sense of the kind of posting that goes on, consider this recent exchange:

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:27 AM
Author: Robert Digital

I dont really want to… just got out of a long relationship, so I’m not ready for something serious at all… also, I’m not sure I’ve ever been on an official “date,” and would be nervous… plau I just wanted to chill this weekend. Age not an issue as I’m 29. she seems cute, but not clear how DTF she’d be on first date… should I suck it up and go on a date for the adventure/experience/possible sex?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968162)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:33 AM
Author: ,..,,,,…,,,,…,,.,.,.,.,,.,

Wait a minute. You’re 29. She’s 30. And you say age is NOT an issue? She may be only one year older than you chronologically, but she’s at least FIVE years older than the norm of what you should be dating.

But as to your answer on the DTF point, absolutely. That’s all that single 30something women are good for, anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968194)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:38 AM
Author: JustWokeUp

she’s hit shrewdom. Hit it n quit it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968234)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:40 AM
Author: ,..,,,,…,,,,…,,.,.,.,.,,.,

This sounds reasonable, although there’s tight 21 year old pussy for that which will do the trick and be just as satisfying. 30yo shrews are prime targets for the 40something newly divorced.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968243)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:53 AM
Author: JustWokeUp

it’s easy sex for him though. 21 year olds play games.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968310)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:57 AM
Author: Robert Digital

im good at those games by now though… a “date” with a30-yr old is uncharted teritory for me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968340)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:52 AM
Author: Robert Digital

well, not an issue for me. I dont give a fuck

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968308)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:33 AM
Author: …;;…;…….;;..

Go. At the very least, use this opportunity to dip your feet in the water of freedom.

Oh, and stop acting like a chic.

Ps… All girls are DTF. Just use this to practice your game.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968198)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:52 AM
Author: Robert Digital

“water of freedom” would be more like getting faded with my buddies… but I guess I can do that whenever…

I know all girls are DTF, but some girls who are 30 and single are single b/c they have stupid rules like “no fucking on 1st date.”

Game does need lots of work though… that point is well taken

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968305)

Date: September 14th, 2011 11:57 AM
Author: ,..,,,,…,,,,…,,.,.,.,.,,.,

IME it’s the 21 year olds who stick to their stupid rules more than the 30 year olds. The 30 year olds who are still on the market have given up and no longer think there’s a point in trying to feign being ladylike.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1758334&forum_id=2#18968338)

I am a little surprised that sometimes someone takes the time and makes the effort to rebut the nihilism and negativity:

Why do you do this? It is totally unacceptable and crazy…

Stop posting her name on xo. Are you trying to help him google bomb her?…

You should be smart enough to realize that Perez Hilton seeks publicity and wants you to post his name because it makes him money. This girl did not want to be google bombed and certainly did not want you to do what you did. The context of an action is as important as the action itself, and appealing to some nebulous concept of a “public figure” is not convincing. Weirdo …

… if the only thing that matters it the overall amount of utility, we are led to absurd ethical conclusions that no one really accepts. For example, imagine that when you kill someone another person with exactly the same amount of happiness pops into existence. Under basic utilitarianism killing is morally neutral because it causes no change in the overall amount of utility that exists. The utility monster argument and the repugnant conclusion argument are other ways of making the same point. Hedonistic utilitarianism also fails to account for the equality that we should grant to all individual beings capable of intelligent thought. Different beings can experience different amounts of pleasure so if there is one being who gets unbelievably utility from torturing everyone else it is moral for him to do so. It elevates happiness into this weird numerical concept where all we care about is the aggregate amount, which is absurd.