From: Dean Michael Fitts

Dean Gary Clinton

As you many of you recognize, the rise and pervasiveness of the Internet has raised a number of important and novel issues regarding free speech, legal regulation, and one's legal and professional obligations to society and to the professional and Internet communities. The Internet holds great opportunity, but there are also grave risks. In the not too distant past, offhand comments or written observations quickly dissipated over space and time. Today, the comments made on discussion boards, blogs, group websites and other web postings can have permanent and lasting consequences for the subjects as well as the speaker.

While we understand the right of every citizen to engage in spirited debate, we also believe we all have a moral and professional obligation to engage in that debate in a responsible manner. Posts made on the web may well be permanent and may have serious consequences. Things said on discussion boards and blogs can travel around the world instantly, and become something that can define the writer now or at any future point. Statements made now, in jest or between what the writer assumes to be a small group of friends, may come back to haunt one in the future.

In recent weeks, significant attention has been focused on a discussion board co-owned by a Penn law student, as well as other, independent sites that have been linked to it. These sites contain anonymous postings, which we have no reason to believe came from the owner, and which the great majority of thinking people would find beneath the standards of human decency. They remain posted because of laws governing free speech and the board manager's regretful practice of rarely deleting threads when asked. As a matter of law, and under the University's own policies on speech, we feel we have no basis for disciplinary action against the co-owner, though we have had numerous discussions with him about the board and its very unfortunate impact when ad hominem attacks are made against defenseless individuals. While these activities are outside the purview of the Law School, they may well be subject to laws governing libel and defamation brought by individuals subjected to the personal attacks one sees online, and they may increasingly become the subject of concern by bar admissions committees.

Let us give you a few other examples. In the summer of 2005, we became aware of an incident in which comments made by a student on a blog were read by his employer when the employer Googled her own name and discovered what the student had said about her. Result: instant termination of employment. Many recent stories in the press and on TV have said that it is becoming increasingly frequent - and will soon be the norm - for employers to Google the names of potential hires, to see what they may learn about them. We know of cases in which potential employers have seen some very intemperate postings and have questioned the desirability of hiring the individual. And similarly, we know of a young attorney who was fired one day after accidentally sending firm-wide, rather than deleting as she'd intended, an inflammatory and personally abusive email directed at a member of her firm's support staff.

The same caution holds true for the owners of websites, where the language used by others may well reflect negatively on the site's owners, no matter how well-intentioned the site may be. The well-publicized Senate confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts made us all aware of the importance written words can have, even those written decades ago. His writings, the thoughtful and well-considered work-product of an attorney, are mild compared to some of the postings which people put on their blogs or in other postings these days. It is a certainty that some contemporary postings, done for friends or for unknown readers out in cyberspace and in tones that are presented as jests or as sarcastic provocations, will look far different when viewed in the light of an employment review or a Senate confirmation hearing. What is said now as a joke or a flame under cover of supposed anonymity, may well come back to haunt the writer in later years.

The web continues to provide new opportunities, new uses, new challenges, AND new ways to make major life-altering errors. We are writing to you now as a reminder to give some thought to what you write and send out into the world at large. Freedom of speech is an overarching value to all of us. But the use of self-restraint is no assault on that freedom. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND: you are at the start of your professional career. We urge you to take the long view and the adult view of what you write about yourself and about others. THINK about the words you send out into the world, and imagine what they would look like when you - and surely some of you will -find yourself under review at a confirmation hearing or a job interview for a professional position you dearly desire. There is no do-over on the net. Be careful and be professional in what you post about yourself or about others.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726097)

A flame? There are rumors.. on the internets..

Also the GTO bashing is nice. Bravo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726111)

"The same caution holds true for the owners of websites, where the language used by others may well reflect negatively on the site's owners, no matter how well-intentioned the site may be."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726237)

Are you lecturing the Heide Iravanis out there in the world to put on clothes before posing for the pictures they post on myspace and facebook?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726124)

Also, nice saying "yeah, we are a law school, and we realize this may be legal, and we cannot stop it, but even though it's legal, it's wrong, and it's wrong because I say it's wrong"

Does he publicly opine on every legal issue he disagrees with that may affect students?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726171)

If you're so stupid as the think that the internet isn't public, you deserve what you get.

Jesus fucking Christ, people, you're well over 20 years old. Pull your head out of your ass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726650)

lolz.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726190)

To the Dean of Penn, a notoriously bad public law school not even in NYC, I say this: ppppplllllllllllb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726206)

However, the larger message to all students is sensible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726281)

I'm certain he's too stupid to write this as flame...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726341)

Andrew Furlow is the man!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7727307)

I thought that was an xoxo thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726672)

Didn't you read my retirement post?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726703)

Dear Penn:

Was all of the controversy really worth it for an admit with a 165 LSAT?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592156&forum_id=2#7726807)