As you're salivating while you read this, Parker, understand three
things:

1) These women being attacked allegedly did nothing to deserve this,
except for the fact that they are women. What was done to them is more
akin to what YOU have done than what anybody else has ever done in
RESPONSE to what you have done.

2) These women apparantly actually HAVE reputations that can be
damaged. YOU do not. You have ruined your reputation by your own
hand.

3) You're going to read this and align yourself with the plaintiffs in
your mind. Every other sane person will read this and see YOU as the
"AK-47" types posting with your fake Ray Gordon name.

But I look forward anyway to you twisting this into a complaint and
getting the logic all wrong, as usual. It will make for some
interesting reading, and likely result in another dismissal.

And know this asshole, I don't care about being "unmasked." There is
nothing about who I am or what I do that I'm ashamed of or embarrassed
about.

My concern is mostly for my family, and is you knowing who I am and
where I live as I believe you're dangerous. VERY dangerous. I'm not
afraid of you, I can defend myself, but I want to make sure that I'm
never put in the position of having to defend myself against you on
the street or at my front door in the real world, because based on
what you've posted in the past about wanting your critics and their
family members to die, it wouldn't surprise me if one day you showed
up at my door with a weapon, like maybe a gallon of gasoline and some
matches, or a baseball bat.

You really really really need to take a deep breath and look at what
you're doing here. You have a dug yourself into a gigantic hole. It's
simply amazing that somebody hasn't sued YOU yet just on principle.
Don't count on people continuing to just "let it go" because they
don't want to be inconvenienced with a lawsuit. The more you spew, the
more likely it is that somebody will step up. Go ahead and try and get
my identity. Then watch what I do when I instead of having my
anonyminity to protect, I gave my family to protect. And like I said
previously, be careful what you wish for, newsloon, you might just get
it.

Yale Students' Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls, Opens Pandora's Box
By Ryan Singel 9 hours ago
"Women named Jill and Hillary should be raped."

Those are the words of "AK-47" -- a poster to the college-admissions
web forum AutoAdmit.com. AK-47 was one of a handful of students
heaping misogynist scorn on women attending the nations' top law
schools in 2007, in posts so vile they spurred a national debate on
the limits of online anonymity, and an unprecedented federal lawsuit
aimed at unmasking and punishing the posters.

Now lawyers for two female Yale Law School students have ascertained
AK-47's real identity, along with the identities of other AutoAdmit
posters, who all now face the likely publication of their names in
court records -- potentially marking a death sentence for the comment
trolls' budding legal careers even before the case has gone to trial.

The unmasking of the posters marks a milestone in a rare legal
challenge to the norms of online commenting, where arguments live on
for years in search-engine results and where reputations can be
sullied nearly irreparably by anyone with a grudge, a laptop and a
WiFi connection. Yet a year after the lawsuit was filed, little else
has been resolved -- and legal controversies have multiplied. The
women themselves have gone silent, and their lawyers -- two of whom
are now themselves being sued -- are not talking to the press. Legal
experts are beginning to wonder aloud if there's any point in pressing
the messy lawsuit.

"You have good lawyers putting their time in on the case, and in a
policy sense, they are achieving something, says Ann Bartow, an
associate professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
"But in a victim sense -- assuming you think of the women as victims
-- it's not clear what this is going to achieve."

The AutoAdmit controversy began even before one of the women,
identified in court documents as "Jane Doe I," started classes in the
fall of 2005, the lawsuit alleges. Doe I was alerted in the summer to
an AutoAdmit comment thread entitled "Stupid Bitch to Attend Law
School." The thread included messages such as, "I think I will
sodomize her. Repeatedly" and a reply claiming "she has herpes." The
second woman, Jane Doe II, was similarly attacked beginning in January
2007.

Both women tried in vain to persuade the administrators of the
AutoAdmit.com site to remove the threads, according to the lawsuit.
But then the story of the cyber-harassment hit the front page of The
Washington Post, and the law school trolls became fodder for cable
news shows. Soon after, the female law students, with help from
Stanford and Yale law professors, filed the federal lawsuit in June
2007 seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

The Jane Doe plaintiffs contend that the postings about them became
etched into the first page of search engine results on their names,
costing them prestigious jobs, infecting their relationships with
friends and family, and even forcing one to stop going to the gym for
fear of stalkers.

"We have never had such a way to lie and distort facts about people --
to spread lies and distortions in a way that is attached to them,"
says Bartow. "And you can game it to come up on the front page of
Google."

Bartow believes the problem lies in technology outstripping the law
and our cultural responses. George Washington University Law Professor
Daniel Solove, who's been thinking about the issue long enough to have
written a book called The Future of Reputation, agrees. He says the
law needs to change.

"The internet isn't a radical-free zone where you can hurt people. But
on the other hand, we can't have everyone rushing to the court,
because the court is a blunt tool," Solove says. "We need something to
help shape norms -- there needs to be some kind of push back against
the notion that the internet is a place where you can say what you
want and screw the consequences. That's not what free speech is
about."

Since libel lawsuits are mostly about clearing one's name, Solove
finds himself lamenting the lost ritual of duels, which he describes
as an elaborate nonjudicial way of settling disputes that rarely
actually got to the shooting phase.

"We don't have any middle-ground dispute resolution processes in
society anymore, and courts aren't a good way to vindicate these non-
monetary harms," Solove says. "I think we need something else."

One idea gaining traction among legal thinkers would be DMCA-like
legislation permitting victims of defamation to issue take-down
notices, asking ISPs and websites to remove false and damaging user
posts. If the service complies, it would be immune to any legal
action.

But that regime hasn't worked entirely well with copyright -- false
DMCA notices have been used by everyone from the Pentagon to the
psychic Uri Geller to remove content from YouTube.

Jason Schultz, the acting director of the Law, Technology and Public
Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley, says it would be a mistake to bring that
regime to bear on controversial speech online.

"I think you run the risk of too much take-down," Schultz says. The
hurdles and expenses of a court fight act as useful checks on those
who would suppress speech, he adds. "I think you need procedural
hurdles in place since we are talking about a constitutional right."

Even relying on current liability law, the AutoAdmit case has trod on
dangerous ground.

The lawyers for the two women originally named one of AutoAdmit's
administrators, Anthony Ciolli, then a third-year law student at the
University of Pennsylvania, as a defendant -- even though Congress
intentionally shielded electronic service providers from
responsibility for what their users post online.

Ciolli's former lawyer, Marc Randazza, says Ciolli never wrote
anything defamatory, and was named in the lawsuit simply for leverage,
in an effort to get the site owner to change how disturbing material
was handled on AutoAdmit.

"As an attorney, I found it really offensive that Ciolli was being
held hostage to these people's demands on a third party," says
Randazza.

Solove is not nearly as sympathetic.

"Part of reason people were so upset with Anthony Ciolli was that he
stuck to his guns and defended things on free speech grounds," Solove
says. "People want to see some sort of contriteness."

After months, the Jane Does finally dropped Ciolli from the lawsuit,
but that did not satisfy Ciolli, who filed his own lawsuit in March
2008, accusing the women and their lawyers of improperly listing him
among those who made the rude comments.

The women's lawyers -- Yale's David Rosen and Stanford's Mark Lemley
-- declined repeated requests for comment.

A federal judge ruled in January that the attorneys could serve
subpoenas on ISPs and webmail providers. Using that power, the lawyers
have unmasked some -- though not all -- of the AutoAdmit posters.

Now they're asking the judge to give them additional time to try and
determine the identities of the remaining defendants, who are
currently being sued under their AutoAdmit handles: among others,
PaulieWalnuts, Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, The Ayatollah of Rock-n-
Rollah, Patrick Bateman and HitlerHitlerHitler.