There is a free speech controversy swirling around an ethics complaint in Illinois brought by University of Denver law professor Nancy Leong. Leong runs a blog site called Feminist Law Professors and recently discovered the identity of an anonymous commenter who has, according to Leong, left racist and sexist comments. She says that he is a a public defender in his late 40s and she wants him punished for his comments. We have discussed the free speech rights of public employees in an earlier column and blog postings, including the right to speak on blogs and Internet sites. The actions of Leong are troubling for those of us who believe strongly in free speech values, including the right to anonymity.
The poster used “dybbuk” in posts that referenced Leong. In one post, he talks about a 28-year-old law grad and wrote “I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.” He also criticized Leong, including her presentation in Hawaii on “racial capitalism,” stating “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train. Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”
Leong found dozens of references about her on five different websites as part of her investigation, including disparaging her scholarship and describing her as “a comely young narcissist” and a “law professor hottie.” She also said that other professors that he criticized on these various sites were overwhelmingly directed at women and professors of color. She considers anonymous postings with sexist elements to be unethical. She writes in the complaint that “There are over 6,000 tenured and tenure-track law professors in the United States have less practice experience than I do. Most of them have weaker publishing records than I do. Most of them have weaker teaching evaluations than I do. Almost all of them have been members of the legal academy longer than I have. Almost all of them have more power and prominence than I do. In light of these facts, it is difficult to think of a reasonable explanation for [dybbuk’s] obsessive attention to an untenured professor.”
That does not sound like the basis of an ethics complaint. I am highly sympathetic to Leong because I have long been amazed how anonymity unleashes the both base and juvenile instincts in some people. Many posters are consumed by jealously and prejudice — venting these feelings in a way that would never be tolerated in many public or employment settings. They often seem personify their anger in their own lives or careers against those who take on public causes or positions. It is a sad statement of our species and something that has led many blogs to ban either anonymous postings or all comments from their sites.
I can certainly understand Leong’s desire to set matters straight, though I have had far worse comments directed my way as a newspaper columnist and a television commentator. I rarely if ever respond or even correct false statements on my background. As many know, this blog enforces a civility rule while working hard to avoid banning individuals in light of our free speech principles. We also recognize the right of anonymity. When you write for a newspaper or a blog, you willingly become a public figure — a role that comes with both good and bad speech direct at you by others. One of the few exchanges that I have had with a critic was not over the content of criticism but the tenor. Some of you may recall that a few year ago I had an interesting exchange with another legal blog where the host expressly rejected civility on her site or other sites. I continue to believe that people, especially lawyers, carry a responsibility to engage in respectful and civil dialogue. All of us will have relapses, but most of us were raised to show such respect in dealings with others, even those with whom we disagree. Clearly Leong is dealing with someone who long ago abandoned such restraints, but that does not mean that his speech should be the subject of discipline by a bar.
In my view, the criticism of Leong’s writings or experience falls squarely under protected speech. Ironically, she has an impressive publication and academic record that speaks for itself without the need for extrinsic disciplinary mechanisms. Moreover, as an anonymous filing, these are postings that do not reflect on this man’s employer. Underlying the complaint seems to be a view that sexist or racist statements made as an anonymous person would still constitute a violation. We have discussed in many blogs and columns and (here) how non-discrimination laws have increasingly collided with free speech principles.
In a blog posting, Leong speaks about investigating harassers. She says that she tracked down her critic to confront him:
To my regret, my harasser refused to speak to me. I called him at his office (once) and left a message with the person (not him) who picked up the phone simply leaving my name and number and asking him to call me. He didn’t call back. A few days later I emailed him (once), explaining that I had identified him and that I wished to discuss his Internet posting activities. The email was difficult to write. It triggered emotions relating to an experience confronting a person who abused me many years ago. I did my best to keep the email polite and professional and–to the extent I could–I tried to express some sympathy for circumstances in his life of which I might not be aware.
It clearly did not work and Leong proceeded to file a formal complaint. That is where I have to respectfully disagree with Professor Leong. The effort to punish this poster threatens free speech and creates a chilling message for those who wish to engage in discussions on an anonymous basis. I know that that is not her purpose but she is attempting to discipline a person for criticizing her and engaging in language that she finds offensive. That is anathema for most civil libertarians even though most of us find these writings to be offensive and insulting. As academics, we owe a special duty to free speech and the need to preserve protected spaces for such speech on campus and the Internet. This is precisely why it was so alarming to see Jewish students recently seek to strip anonymity for posters of material that they find objectionable. Free speech comes at a cost, particularly for those who become public figures. The Internet is rife with hateful and false statements. However, it is also the single greatest advance in free speech in history. I am confident that the work of Professor Leong will be remembered long after dybbuk has passed into well-deserved obscurity. However, this should not be part of that legacy.
I understand from personal experience the anger and frustration of having trolls and critics write false or vicious things about you. Yet, Professor Leong should withdraw this complaint. If not, it should be denied by the Commission as intruding into free speech areas, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Source: ABA Journal
There will ALWAYS has been, and will be racists and bigots. What has grown exponentially in our PC culture the past few decades are people who throw those accusations around like baseballs @ Spring Training. They’re becoming meaningless. Maybe they need to have The Boy Who Cried Wolf Training along w/ sensitivity training. Oh, and resume civics class in 8th grade. The cluelessness of people regarding the First Amendment is mind boggling.
Lottakatz;
Your proffer of an item is germane;
but I must object as to discussion of facts not in evidence.
Please provide link and “excerpt”/blockquote?
If true – I concur – that the poster (poser) has big issues…
VaBar member:
“Here is the oath taken by Virginia lawyers. It says one would uphold the Constitution:”
*****************
That’s my point and its the first thing we swear to do. All the rest, as Rabbi Hillel might say, is commentary. Nothing in the First Amendment about outing somebody for hurt feelings or enlisting the Bar in personal vendettas.
Oro Lee both comments, Right and right. You know where the rubber meets the road. The First Amendment (speech and religion) is being whored out to cover and excuse acts that would otherwise howled down as (illegally) bigoted or infringing into Title VII territory. Like “politically correct” the First Amendment is now the shield for racists and bigots.
Thanks Oro Lee. It’s been a life long battle. To be a strong outspoken woman who defends herself makes one the target of yet more abuse, but women should stay strong and not be cowed.
It IS all too easy to dismiss REAL abuse, because it’s not happening to YOU. All that sensitivity training in the universities didn’t seem to really make much of a difference if one judges men by what one reads here in this thread by the majority of male commenters. Cudos to Oro Lee and Laser and others who “get it”.
The essential points of interest to me are the ethical standards of the local bar association and whether or not the comments violated those standards. Her complaint should be that in a public forum he denigrated her credentials using language that is sexist in nature. He said in essence that she had slight credentials but was trotted out (or trotted herself out) on stage to be lusted after in a manner that distracted her peers in the audience from noticing the insufficient legal theories.
Along with his open fantasizing about sub/dom sex paints a picture of her that essentially reduces her to a sexual object and not to be taken seriously. Her peers, prospective employers, prospective clients, teachers etc. may (or have seen those postings. It is an image that will follow her and could have an impact on her career. He has not formulated an argument examining her scholarship but attacked her scholarship through her sex attributes. Has he written such things about men he takes issue with?
I think a complaint to the bar was appropriate if the local association has an ethics rule against sexism, or denigrating peers and fellows outside of methods and means proscribed by the association.
If the local association does not have such standards then making the sexist and objectionable behaviour public and showing “dubbuk” to be exactly what the definition of his web-name implies:
Dybbuk definition in Wikipedia: (his name is obviously a play on the original name)
“In Jewish mythology, a dybbuk (Yiddish: דיבוק, from Hebrew adhere or cling) is a malicious possessing spirit believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person”
Quotes from article:
“I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.” He also criticized Leong, including her presentation in Hawaii on “racial capitalism,” stating “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train. Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”
Sorry for the confusion – I’m at Starbucks and a kid ran up and tapped the KB.
The following errant paragraph
Should have read;
I’m not one for political correctness;thus your (1 out of a zillion) hypothetical’s doesn’t bode well for your point. Take for example the banter about the N word; yours truly was the only Caucasian in a NYC High School during desegregation in the 70’s.
Bill Cosby’s opinion has merits and Kat Williams does too.
They both are entitled to their free speech; but will suffer a Wrath of KONG if done in the wrong forum; because – in the real world – there are public penalties for public displays of thoughts and actions.
——————————————————————
Maturity and discipline come to U.S. all; some in greater levels than others.
Years ago, had yours truly met “dybbuk” and/or could readily reach out and touch him; I’d make him apologize for his bully behavior (even possibly being self – serving in trying to win the woman’s “to the rescue” smile).
Now, I’m more disciplined than that.
Prior to this year, my blood would boil at every legal eagle that would sling typed, web slings & arrows of disdain in perverted defense of criminal behavior (because it meant an attorney would pay a penalty); but – for the last year mostly – I’m less likely to get upset and more likely to take the high road.
And Still have a LONG way to go upon the “better than that” journey.
Meanwhile, I expect every word I’ve ever typed in web land –
to wind up on my adversaries hit parade
(most likely in a cut & paste – less than kosher fashion)
Hey – like the above – I’m an open book, utilizing my name (not an anon).
My “opinionated” comments are thought through;
and my campaign against Romney & Gang risks much more than a “firing”.
(real poor choice of word[s])
I’m not one for political correctness;thus your (1 out of a zillion) hypothetical’s doesn’t bode well for your point. As for the N word; yours truly was the only Caucasian male in a Kat Williams. They both are entitled to their free speech; but will suffer a Wrath of KONG if done in the wrong forum.
What is at issue here – is the civil right to redress grievances.
Those of the legal profession are biased in their “opinions” on this matter; because they feel threatened. That is because (whether you admit it or not) attorneys “at law” give up their right to free speech – as far as their Bar Card is concerned.
You can assert your right to free speech;
but you can NOT violate your oath to the BAR.
Finally, as for your premise of taking “what it comes down to” – we do not agree as to the issues at hand. Everyone is socially responsible for their actions; and the Law is vetted through arduous processes, by great scholars, who try their best to define the absolute value of “a” – or “may” – or must”.
In this case, there are many “possible” issues not yet presented in full.
Obviously, the blogger “dybbuk” was on some sort of mission. To prove his virility, to vent his anti-woman’ness, had a bad day, month or year in the PD – and/or who the hell knows. What ever the reason, it will be vetted in a court of law; and the 1st adjudication upon the merits – is not likely to be the last. (We have appeals because judge’s think and speak errantly – too).
———————————————————-
In my particular case – which almost everyone here and the Professor himself are prudent enough to stay away from (because – in the real world {even when you are upon the right side of the issue} – there are penalties for stating your opinion publicly); there ARE 2 counsels upon the blog record who better hope & pray that I never get to depose my opponents.
If just one of them stipulates they had conversations with the 2 parties in question; I’m going to do more than just yank their Bar Cards.
I didn’t notice the number of orange VW bugs on the road until i dated a girl who drove one . . . I didn’t notice the way Hispanic members of my church were constantly slighted by others until I married a Latina . . . i didn’t notice how dangerous the world is for young ladies until I raised two of them.
And I didn’t notice that the professor’s efforts are about more than the sexist rantings of a jerk until I read the comments of Jill, anniefowo, Elaine, and Betty Kath (and I think I can guess the sentiments of Juliet and Lottakatz) as a whole.
That women are raped and otherwise abused in other cultures and in our own military and own our own college campuses with little or no recourse has been often noted on this blog, Those sordid events find their genesis in every slight and deprecating remark visited upon females by men to the damage of both. What is sown will be reaped. Who is owned will be raped. It is part of all cultures primarily crafted by men.
Misogynists should be called out and ridiculed at every turn. The failure to do so — especially by men — is nothing less than approbation of a environment dangerous to women. The failure to do so makes cowards of men.
The professor’s action is her railing against a culture and system that refuses the value the full worth of a woman. And men find that objectionable because, well, it’s just easier to be a jerk if no one is railing against you.
Good job, ladies.
“It triggered emotions relating to an experience confronting a person who abused me many years ago.”
Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you likely know nothing about. Be kind.
@Francie. A voice of reason. Finally. While getting riled up is easier than staying in control, those who rant say more about themselves than those they rant about. Yes, everyone is packing a heavy load, and being kinder to others than necessary doesn’t take a whole lot of work. If we were all in a room and tossed our troubles into a pile in the center, chances are we would take our own back. The professor has a legitimate gripe, but the public memory is short and chances are most of her friends/acquaintances wouldn’t have known had she not brought it to public attention. Besides, I welcome another opportunity to state “What others think of you ain’t none of your business.”
OK, Laser,
You make a lot of opinionated comments. If they offended someone, would you be OK with them tracking you down and trying to get you fired from your job?
Also, if it the subject in question was a Black woman, would you be OK with a White man being offended by her online comments, tracking her down, and trying to cost her her job?
What it comes down to is whether you believe that someone should be allowed to take punitive action against someone for what they say – in absence of an actual threat of course – and how far that punitive action should be allowed to go.
nick;
You have to right to be a pig in your own pen;
but – that right doesn’t including spreading methane gas all over the place.
bettykath, Do men who “get it” need to “Get the minds right” of those who don’t, as in Cool Hand Luke. Should we put these men, “In the box.” Prejudice will never be eliminated. Having what people think out in the open is better than keeping it in the closet. I think commenting and saying nasty, vile, things under an alias is horseshit. I think men who treat women badly are a-holes. But it is not my duty to get others “minds right.” As a father, coach, professional, etc. I need to treat women, and all people, w/ respect, model that behavior. As a libertarian, it is an anathema to me when you say I need to police what other men say or do. They have every right to be a pig. Pretty basic stuff here.
Bettycath,
From what I can easily tell we don’t even know the substance of his comments. We have only vague allegations from the self proclaimed victim.
And, as for his refusal to respond to this woman – If I called you in the next few days – yes, I could find you; it’s part of what I do for a living…but I WON’T because it’s unethical – would you talk to me or would you instead actually consider contacting law enforcement?
Finally, if your mind automatically decides criticism, even cruel criticism, is bullying, especially if that logical mis-jump is based on gender or race, you really need help, though I doubt that such help is available.
I don’t see this as a first amendment issue. I see it as a case of cyber bullying. She certainly can block him from her blog but what of the other 5 he posts on?
I see the men here think his sexist remarks are ok and she is too sensitive. The women see him as a sexist bully. Feminists still have a lot of work to do. Better yet, the men who “get it”, have a lot of work to do in calling their sexist brethren and letting them know that sexist bullying is unacceptable. It is important that men do so b/c it’s obvious that these bullies have no respect for women and certainly aren’t about to hear anything they say. Case in point: this bully refuses to even talk to the woman he bullies. What a wuss.
I have to chuckle. I went over to Professor Leong’s blog[I hope that’s not improper or harassing]. Her posts get 2 or 3 comments. This is, “Much Ado About Nothing.” or “Tempest in a Teapot.”
I have to chuckle. I went over to Professor Leong’s blog[I hope that’s not improper or harassing]. Her posts get 2 or 3 comments. This is, “Much Ado About Nothing.”
To Mespo at 3:42::
Here is the oath taken by Virginia lawyers. It says one would uphold the Constitution:
Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will
support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that you will faithfully, honestly, professionally, and courteously demean yourself in the practice of law and execute your office of attorney at law to the best of your ability, so help you God?”
So if one were to try to overthrow the government established by the Constitution one could be disbarred, easily. So King George may have a point.
Elaine,
What do you mean? Bill is a master of self control.
davidm2575
Nancy Leong is acting like a woman… emotional. [Ooops, did I just say that out loud?]
*****
Then folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Chris Christie all “act like women!” They must be sissy boys!