TLS Adcomm Stalking Forum

[sublime]

..

[Danger Zone]

If memberships in religious or ethnic-based organizations can become protected classes, almost any legal behavior can become protected. So the operative word you omitted is "yet".

Until now, beauty discrimination (where one is perceived to be "too beautiful" or "not beautiful enough") wasn't recognized, but states are beginning to recognize it. Obesity discrimination wasn't recognized - although "disability" was - but more and more cases are going to court.

How would you like certain schools to discriminate against you because you speak out in favor of or against AA, for example?

Social network membership - regardless of how one employs that membership - could become a protected class if tethered to other constitutional issues, such as free speech, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity, etc.

If I was an adcom I would just stay away from it and evaluate what applicants submit. We all know good and well that a good number of them are doing more than that.

I think this overly optimistic about applicants' (or employees') ability to win these kinds of discrimination suits and courts' willingness to expand categories of discrimination.

And as for your online alter-ego argument, my friend (and many others) would consider you wildly optimistic about the ability to distance/detach your real life identity from any statements you make online. Maybe the world should work the way you're arguing, but I think it would be naive and disingenuous to claim that it actually does - which is what people posting here need to think about.

For an aspiring law student, I think you have things quite backwards. Moreover, it's clear that you haven't been following the types of "fringe" cases I am mentioning. States are already recognizing other types of discrimination, so you have no argument there; my suggestions are not overly optimistic, because they have already come to fruition.

Consider also that legal precedents are set every day...based on THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE, not the way things actually are.

But hey, everyone on TLS and LSD (the website, not the drug), said I was crazy when I predicted in 2008 that college athletes would soon find a way to get paid, and that law schools would be facing exposure for fraud. And although the suits haven't been successful, it's only a matter of time before they are.

Look at my old posts, and you will see that I am "that dude": the guy who thinks outside of the box, who everyone says is crazy only to find out later that I wasn't so crazy after all.

I'm telling you right now, eventually some controls will have to be put into place to require adcoms to disclose each and every factor used in the admissions process.

As for the other poster's suggestion that no one has a right to privacy in public, try telling that to men who look up women's skirts with hidden cameras and wind up convicted as sex offenders.

Even in the public sphere there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy. As I said before, if I was wrong, we would all be using our legal names here on TLS. To suggest anything else is disingenuous.

A Nony is not an aspiring law student, and everything you type is pure drivel. Is that how you think lawyers write?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Didn't Massachusetts just uphold some guy's right to take pictures looking up women's skirts?

I also don't think you quite get how pseudonyms on a forum work, but that's cool. I'm just saying that if you say something online you'd better be willing to stand by it.

[sublime]

..

[A. Nony Mouse]

Didn't Massachusetts just uphold some guy's right to take pictures looking up women's skirts?

I also don't think you quite get how pseudonyms on a forum work, but that's cool. I'm just saying that if you say something online you'd better be willing to stand by it.

Yea. that was weird though. The legislators fucked up the criminal statute and have fixed it.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a good thing (letting the guy do that), I just thought it was kind of a funny example to pick.

Needless to say I think there's a difference between voluntarily writing stuff on a public website and having someone look under your clothes against your will, but what do I know?

[sublime]

..

[LeDique]

Moreover, it's clear that you haven't been following the types of "fringe" cases I am mentioning. States are already recognizing other types of discrimination, so you have no argument there; my suggestions are not overly optimistic, because they have already come to fruition.

[Citations Needed]

Consider also that legal precedents are set every day...based on THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE, not the way things actually are.

But hey, everyone on TLS and LSD (the website, not the drug), said I was crazy when I predicted in 2008 that college athletes would soon find a way to get paid, and that law schools would be facing exposure for fraud. And although the suits haven't been successful, it's only a matter of time before they are.

You literally wrote: Everyone said I was crazy for thinking this would happen, but it still hasn't happened. Therefore, I'm not crazy.

[guano]

I'm telling you right now, eventually some controls will have to be put into place to require adcoms to disclose each and every factor used in the admissions process.

actually, no, schools generally shy away from using a point system for scoring applicants. There was a supreme court case recently where a school got in big trouble because they did exactly what you're proposing

Even in the public sphere there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Privacy rights are neither a constitutional nor a common law right. Rather, they developed from two separate legal bases - tort, and property rights. Basically, the right to privacy only applies if A) the subject suffers harm (through publication), or B) money is earned by use of the subject's image/name/likeness (this further developed into the right to publicity).

An adcom's learning about your online persona and using it as a factor in the admissions process does not apply, because A) the law school is not publicizing your private information, and B) the law school is not earning money off your private information

[Pneumonia]

Is this PDaddy willful ignorance thing a schtick? I was going to respond to some of the above but it all just seems so impossibly obtuse that it must be.

[IAFG]

Lol @ a legal right to not be connected to the things you said in public

[TheSpanishMain]

Whole lotta derp in this thread. Manilla, you're well on your way to being one of my favorite contrarian garbage posters.

[First Offense]

manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

wtf in what context?

Happened to me under my old account. Won't give info on it, but yeah, adcomms look at TLS, and sometimes take the time to connect poster to apps.

[TigerDude]

Didn't Massachusetts just uphold some guy's right to take pictures looking up women's skirts?

I also don't think you quite get how pseudonyms on a forum work, but that's cool. I'm just saying that if you say something online you'd better be willing to stand by it.

No the ruling was that the law prohibiting it wasn't specific enough.