Top Law Schools

Bert wrote:And you shouldn't really out the individual. Poor form on your part.

sharpnsmooth wrote:You're 3L at Harvard Law School, and you send a mass racist e-mail about race determining intelligence? Don't know if you guys heard about this, but to shoot the prospects for your future down so rapidly (big law, politics, etc.) for something so dumb is ridiculous. Stephanie, if you're going to fall apart before your 30, at least be involved in a hot sex scandal. This is just a waste.

Mal wrote:

sharpnsmooth wrote:You're 3L at Harvard Law School, and you send a mass racist e-mail about race determining intelligence? Don't know if you guys heard about this, but to shoot the prospects for your future down so rapidly (big law, politics, etc.) for something so dumb is ridiculous. Stephanie, if you're going to fall apart before your 30, at least be involved in a hot sex scandal. This is just a waste.

This might also be libel. You can't change the facts from the email to make it sound worse than it actually was.

The email only acknowledged the possibility that race has some part in determining intelligence. It did not say "White people are smarter than black people" like you are suggesting.

Bert wrote:I don't really think that it matters. I for one did not know who she was until you posted it on TLS, and now I do. Even though the information is available somewhere else it does not change the fact that posting her name here is inappropriate, especially when accusing her (in an anonymous board) of sending racist emails.

sharpnsmooth wrote:
[strike]bert, legally, it is not libel for a number of reasons. firstly, i am taking knowledge from a previously existing published source and have all reason to believe that whatever i wrote is fully true as i trust the integrity of this newspaper. the fact you now know about her does not make it libel. according to your logic, a coworker who engages you in a discussion about oj simpson by the water cooler is guilty of libel, because you don't read the news and do not know about him. the purpose of the libel laws is to prohibit the spread of untrue gossip to damage the quality of life for an individual. i was referencing information that was already in a newspaper. if this is untrue, it is the paper and only the paper at fault as there is no reason for me to suspect it is not accurate. moreover, by sending an e-mail in writing from her personal account, she can't argue she had a realistic expectation to privacy.[/strike]

i removed my posting[strike], because although the newspapers clearly believe this was racially offensive, i personally do not know what exactly her point was and do not want to help in making her look worse than she already does. i just commented on how stupid a situation this is to have gotten yourself into. i doubt harvard law could have castigated her in anyway for this as this was not spoken to an african american student, and therefore is certainly not harassment. however, for her friends to forward this to advocacy groups does mess her up pretty badly lol[/strike].

Bert wrote:RC fail on you. I wasn't the one who indicated it was libel, and I certainly did not accuse you of libel, so while your summation of the purposes of the libel laws is entertaining, I feel it hardly pertains to anything I wrote.

sharpnsmooth wrote:
[strike]bert, legally, it is not libel for a number of reasons. firstly, i am taking knowledge from a previously existing published source and have all reason to believe that whatever i wrote is fully true as i trust the integrity of this newspaper. the fact you now know about her does not make it libel. according to your logic, a coworker who engages you in a discussion about oj simpson by the water cooler is guilty of libel, because you don't read the news and do not know about him. the purpose of the libel laws is to prohibit the spread of untrue gossip to damage the quality of life for an individual. i was referencing information that was already in a newspaper. if this is untrue, it is the paper and only the paper at fault as there is no reason for me to suspect it is not accurate. moreover, by sending an e-mail in writing from her personal account, she can't argue she had a realistic expectation to privacy.[/strike]

i removed my posting[strike], because although the newspapers clearly believe this was racially offensive, i personally do not know what exactly her point was and do not want to help in making her look worse than she already does. i just commented on how stupid a situation this is to have gotten yourself into. i doubt harvard law could have castigated her in anyway for this as this was not spoken to an african american student, and therefore is certainly not harassment. however, for her friends to forward this to advocacy groups does mess her up pretty badly lol[/strike].

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the juicy gossip about these 3Ls destroying their lives.

PS - on a side note, I don't think gawker is a news source whose integrity is worthy of trust, especially with articles such as "Who Is Coming Out of the Closet on May 5?" and "Indiana Grandmother Is Having a New Baby. With Her Grandson."

That's just my two cents.