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
davidm,
It is not based upon the gender of the victim. I apologize if I didn’t make my point more clearly. It would be the same if a woman PD made sexist statements about a male law professor akin to those made by “dybbuk” regarding Leong and other women. It would be “objectifying” that person with regard to sex. It works both ways. In our world, however, males aren’t objectified anywhere near as frequently as women. In our world, girls and women who have been raped are often victimized again by society when their rapists receive community support and they are accused of being sluts or having “led the boys on.”
BTW, I’m a modern woman. I–like many other women–don’t need men to treat me with kid gloves. I don’t accept being condescended to or treated as an inferior because I and other women are stereotyped as overly emotional and overly sensitive due to our gender.
Elaine M wrote: “It works both ways. In our world, however, males aren’t objectified anywhere near as frequently as women.”
Seriously, I am not tracking with you. I would not file a complaint if Nancy Leong wrote about pretending to listen while undressing me with her eyes as I spoke at a convention. What man would have a problem with that?
It would be an interesting vote to see how many men on this blog would file a complaint of sexism over it. Some men might actually be pleased and excited by such a statement from her.
“Seriously, I am not tracking with you. I would not file a complaint if Nancy Leong wrote about pretending to listen while undressing me with her eyes as I spoke at a convention. What man would have a problem with that?”
I agree you are not tracking.
The point is not whether you or any male would file a complaint. The point is whether the protection is available to you should such attention interfere with your job or other aspects of your life.
*correction – gender of the victim (not victim of the gender)
Porn has always been and always will be; just in different “art forms” (soon there will be “Holograms” (Holygram’s) – and I remember when a Reverend was sending out copies of a Playboy film to all churches, deacons etc., – so they could “see” what they wanted to fight for everyone else Not to See.
Readership of Playboy skyrocketed (as did profits for Playboy films)
————————————–
Back to the core issues at hand – you people are defending a position that is untenable; and have gone upon the web doing so.
Good luck with getting the next Holy Crusade Church as a client!
We ALL have our faults; but backing/defending the actions of “dybbuk” – simply because your attorney “at law” hair is getting miff – is an UGLY position.
Lacks nobility, character and sound logic.
Including the disingenuous banter that “dybbuk” said nothing wrong!
Sheeessshhhh!
Elaine M:
Ol’ Davidm is always so amazed by the language whenever it suits him yet so infinitely understanding otherwise. Anyone not understanding that Dubyuk’s posting did objectify women certainly needs an English refresher course or maybe a dictionary.
In gay porn it’s hot men “objectified…”Oh, the humanity!!”
jonolan, All porn is “objectifying” a person as a sex object. Remember, it was feminists and Christian Conservatives who were unholy allies in wanting to ban porn. And since those days, porn has grown exponentially. How did that work out for those ideologues?
Elaine,
And so freaking what? How is any of that actionable to extent of trying to get someone disbarred?
If we removed every sexist and racist from the employment pool we’d have to first get rid of the worst offenders, the Feminists – who’s entire basis is sexist in nature – and every minority activist – – who’s entire basis is racist in nature.
Or are White Men to be held to different, higher standard because we, for “some reason” expect better from them?
Davidm said: “Help me understand this “objectifying them as sex objects” thing. A lot of men make racial epithets at other men. President Nixon had a favorite word: c0cksuck3r. If a man calls another man this word, is he objectifying him as a sex object?”
*****
Let’s see. I’ll quote an excerpt from Jonathan’s post:
“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.”
Let’s change the pronoun “she” to “he” and the gender in the above. excerpt:
I think HE has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the BOY dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank HIM with a wet slipper.
*****
Let’s look at another excerpt from the post:
“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.”
Now…I’ll change a couple of words:
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 Davidm yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing HIM with their eyes.”
*****
Did dybbuk objectify Leong/women as sex objects. Gee, I dunno. Let me think for a millisecond…YES!!!!!
Elaine M wrote: “Did dybbuk objectify Leong/women as sex objects. Gee, I dunno. Let me think for a millisecond…YES!!!!!”
That’s not the crux of my query. You pointed out how it works if a male or if I was the object of those statements. The thing is, if I was the object of this man’s statements, I would have no recourse in regards to any ethic rules about sexism because I am the same sex.
So the rationale of the law is not equally applied. It is based upon the victim of the gender. Ultimately, at the root of these sexist laws is that women respond differently than men do about this kind of inappropriate behavior. It would be interesting to see how many legal cases like this are brought where the man is the victim and the perpetrator is a woman.
It is a known tactic of law professors to find some niche and take possession of it so as to solidify the position on a school faculty. There is no doubt that this professor is a female and like half the population has the credential to spout on a weblog about feminism. There was a guy who was accused of claiming American Indian heritage so as to garner his niche in a law school. I think he was related to Winston Churchill because that was his last name. Winston claimed that his mom’s side of the aisle was American Indian, so this guy had a last name and a story. This particular guy was an expert in Indian Treaty law and published some good stuff. The current Senator from some state up East is said to have claimed Indian heritage and then used that to keep her job at a law school. And from that niche she is now a Senator.
So, law professors, find your niche, it will help gain you tenure. Once you gain tenure you can say what you want.
She is surely getting some publicity out of it. A prosecutors dream.
With everything that everybody has stated above…. I waited this one… The guy is a public defender…. If he treats women this way anonymously….. How does he treat his various clients….
Ditto Mike A on the cyber stalking law and a poor excuse for the profession…..
Ooops,
Sticks and stones may break my bones but
namescriticism will never hurt me.Sticks and stones may break my bones but
names criticism will never hurt me.I think all the incivility that hate-mongers bring to any medium merely exposes themselves as the sociopaths they are and that decent people, even those who share varying socio-political views, will always condemn the actions like those of dybbuk’s and be empathetic with those they attack. They garner no real support outside their own circle of troglodytes.
It is time to end Police Correctness. It served its purpose but has grown to be as bad or worse than the problems it sought to end.
Freedom of expression is fine…as long as it does not become too 100 % free. That is always the concept from people who hold a position of power and regard, recognized or otherwise.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/law-firm-connect-san-fernando-valley
If this matter goes before a bar committee, and there is an attractive woman on the panel who rules against him, would it be appropriate to call her a “comely young narcissist” in his appeal papers? How about if he starts blogging anonymously about her incompetence, and throws in a bunch of sexist comments along the way.
Of course, there is a right to free speech. There is also a responsibility of lawyers to behave appropriately and professionally. I think the latter trumps the former here.
I’ve followed this matter for a whole, and my thoughts are as follows:
1. Dybbuks complaints relate mainly to two things:
A)leongs utter lack of experience in practicing the subject (criminal evidence) she presumes to teach, and
B) a ridiculous, puerile, self indulgent paper she published, which is worth every bit of the scorn dybbuk heaped on it and then some
2. Her claims of racism are without merit… In the offending post dybbuk is clearly ridiculing a Hawaiian conference she went on, rather than her background.
3. In making the above claim, ms leong is probably being disingenuous
4. Dybbuk DID make two, stupid, offensive sexist comments which he should apologise for.
5. The rest of his comments are fair.
6. Ms Leongs claims that she is afraid of dybbuk are clear nonsense. He appears to live over 1000 miles away from her and has never contacted her (she did repeatedly try to contact him, however).
7 ms leong has a tenure track position. A high income and a light workload. Her position of whining victimhood is tiresome and absurd
I am getting sick of that photo of the painting of George the slave holder.
The Le ong and short of it is that what we have here is someone running a blog who is not up to speed.
Another thing. Demographics show that there are too many law students, which is caused by law schools having to support too many law professors. Too many lawyers out there and so there are too many students and of course way too many law professors. There is no way to curb this. Some law professors want to hang on by creating some niche for themselves. Here is her niche and she created one that by itself has armor. No one up above will want to deny tenure if she is head of the feminists. Mein Gott. How smart this niche is. We women are after all minorities and we need to stomp out these bigots who question anything.
LaserDLiquidator, You other concerns, 1, I am not a lawyer and 2, it’s not an matter specific to a corporation. I think she’s probably in the right forum and that she has a case worth investigating to see what, if any, rules the local bar association has on such matters.
That’s as candid as it gets.
Mike;
Concur in the fact(or’s) that there’s a juxtaposing of issues in the banter.
Take issue with what Prof’s “complaint” may say (as far as I am aware – non of U.S. have eye witnessed the actual “complaint” {isn’t reveal of such verboten}).
Do agree that “dybbuk” is acting distastefully.
Super Concur that attorneys “at law” are responsible to a higher standard.
——————————————-
lottakatz;
The matters at hand should be addressed by the American Bar and Congress
——————————————
TO ALL;
Having reviewed the Professor’s discussion on the “Feminist” website – I find that she is much more credible than most of you here upon have given her credit for. It strikes me that – more than likely – you are being loyal to the “at law” brotherhood 1st and humanity 2nd; and that does not bode well for the good order of society in any realm of discussion.
Many of you – this day – have made me realize that (though you have gone a different path than I), your value system has not come to the same direction of pursuits that mine have.
We are always taking 1 step forward; and trying super hard to take 2 steps back.
Wish such weren’t so!
lottakatz? How many? And I could swear your picture is a dead-ringer for a guy I met in Albuquerque last year filming the “Lone Ranger.” Tutu, Tonto – something like that. All hail the Black Pearl!