Michael Schill A Finalist To Lead UW – Madison

Professor Filler,

While we appreciate this update on the "Kremlinology" of US law school dean searches, credible allegations have surfaced that TFL shared the IP addresses of anonymous commentators with Professor Brian Leiter.

Do you plan to address these concerns in a forthright and transparent manner with readers and the TFL community? From my vantage, this issue constitutes nothing less than an existential threat to the credibility of TFL and its moderators/administrators.

Many long-time readers are anxious for a response from you. A number of VAPs and VAP candidates provided candid and courageous feedback on the "VAP Trap" thread. I think you owe them some reassurance that their information was not shared with Professor Leiter.

Is this blog an instrumentality of Brian Leiter?

Are you, Dan Filler, in favor of his bullying tactics?

"I'm involved in a philosophy conference the next few days, and then finals are coming up for winter quarter, so I won't have much new for a bit. But hopefully Dan will have some news."

From http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/ today.

Any news, Dan?

You seem to be too busy to answer your emails Dan. Hope you find some time soon.

Dan Filler (calling you professor would imply respect), you need to understand – the machinations you have engaged in with Brian Leiter will not go away. Until you address the leaks to Leiter and the behaviour that it is evident that you facilitated long after it was obvious that the leaked information was bing used nefariously by Leiter and your role in it – you are without any respect as a commentator on the state of US legal education. You have ruined yourself – and tenure now is the sole fig-leaf left to you.

To be blunt, your fellow administrators on this blog need to do two things: (a) announce a strict privacy policy, and (b) announce that you have decided that you will have nothing more to do with this (or any other blog) in favor of spending more time with your pet rocks. Your final act should be to send a grovelling and humiliating apology to everyone whose e-mail you provided to Leiter.

You seem to be under the delusion that if you stay silent – and Leiter (who has been posting even today as "Brian") pretends to too busy at a philosophy conference (while frantically calling various website administrators) for a few more days, this will all "blow over." No it won't – you have destroyed yourself with the assistance of your friend Leiter.

Time to come clean and beg for understanding. While you are at it, drop Leiter in the brown stuff, after all he did it to you.

"credible" allegations?

If the allegations aren't true, it would seem Filler and Leiter would have said something by now. Silence doesn't look good.

I think it's unfair to expect Dan to admit giving Leiter the information in light of possible criminal liability for doing so if it violates any laws of the states in which he, Leiter, or the posters were living. That's up to whatever authorities take an interest in the matter (unless someone presses charges, not much will probably happen along those grounds).

However, like many people here I am in academia and would rather focus on developing my career rather than worrying about personal information getting into vindictive hands that might interfere with that development.

So, what would be nice if TFL could provide a privacy policy and a listing of who exactly has access to IP addresses and email addresses, a promise that going forward that privacy policy will be vigorously enforced, and a promise that if that policy ever changes then it will be non-retroactive (whatever new person gains access will not gain access to old poster information).

I suggest that anyone who wants to post anonymously on this board read this first:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/brian-leiters-slow-motion-car-crash-cont

I also suggest that anyone who wants to continue to co-blog with Dan Filler consider the ramifications of that decision.

While Paul Campos continues to cyber-stalk and bully the Faculty Lounge blogger, normal people might be interested in Leiter's brief comment about this spectacle in a March 8 update:

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/03/we-get-mail-thomas-r-grover-esq-edition.html

I would have thought it was impossible for me to have a lower opinion of Brian Leiter’s moral character, and/or deeper suspicions about his mental health, but then I read his astonishingly mendacious response to the claims in these posts. Suffice it to say (for now) that Leiter manages to give the impression that he’s denying the truth of what I wrote without actually denying almost anything. He doesn’t deny that he’s “Peter Aduren,” he doesn’t deny that he sent emails to the formerly anonymous people with whom I spoke (and who considered these emails to be cyber-harrassment), and he doesn’t even deny that Dan Filler wrongfully and quite possibly illegally disclosed the email addresses of these people to him after they provided confidential information to TFL, in order to post at that site. The record, I think, pretty much now speaks for itself.

Maybe someone at an academic conference abroad doesn't spend enough time parsing your lengthy postings, but it seems clear that you're a pathological liar and you've libelled Leiter. Good luck!

"wrongfully and quite possibly illegally disclosed the email addresses"

I hesitate to prolong the hijacking of this thread, but the damage appears to have been done. Paul, what is the law that you believe potentially applies to the disclosure of email addresses used to comment on a blog? I can't imagine what it might be. I'm not aware of a law that requires a noncommercial website operator to protect email addresses.

Brucie:

If you don't know of the various provisions that might apply you ought to. Say The California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 or the FTC Code of Fair Information Practices. The California act requires a site to show its privacy policy and precludes this sort of disclosure. The FTC code has similar requirements. Also if you were not a law professor – and hence in practice you would by now have heard of the EU's data protection directive and the consequential FTC Safe Harbor regs that most US lawyers doing anything with data know about since they impact US businesses including TypePad, Google, etc.

May I suggest that everyone who has been cyber-stalked by Leiter (like me) – post on the thread:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/pathological-liars

Post with a distinct handle so victims can be counted – it does not have to be the one you were stalked with (Bob is not). I am willing to say I have been. Let’s see how many people there are?

And when you do so, note what forums you posted on – prawfsblawg, faculty lounge, etc. And Yes, I'm convinced my e-mail was leaked and that it was from this forum.

And Dan, don't bother handing this to your buddy, this posting was made though a proxy server and not with my e-mail address.

Inter alia, I will work hard to ensure there are consequences not just for Dan, but for all the administrators here who allowed this to happen.

I am no jurisdictional expert, but why does EU or California law apply to the Faculty Lounge?

anon – Posters in California, Posters in the EU, the host of the faculty lounge if international almost certainly has signed on to the FTC safe harbor rules which would apply essentially the same regs. as the EU.

The safe harbor is interesting – a lot of us companies and banks have had to sign up to operate in Europe. You can end up in EU jurisdiction easily – someone takes their smartphone to Europe and you collect data while they are there, you have customers or posters in Europe.

Decency and Bob: I suspected that Paul might have been thinking along the lines that you two apparently are, that the FTC Act, California Online Privacy Protection Act, or EU Data Protection Directive might apply here. But none of them do. There is no general requirement under U.S. law that would prohibit the operator of a website from voluntarily disclosing an email address or basic log information such as an IP address to third parties. There are some laws and regulations that would apply to various *commercial* website operators, such as some of those that you cite, that would require either a disclosure of privacy practices or in some instances take affirmative steps to protect personally identifiable information. But none of them would govern here.

For example, the California Online Privacy Protection Act applies only to "[a]n operator of a commercial Web site or online service." The Faculty Lounge does not even have advertisements, which in any event would not be enough to make it "commercial," in my view. In addition, the California OPPA only governs the collection of information from an individual "who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit" from the website. It clearly does not apply here.

Section 5 of the FTC Act likewise only prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." Although "commerce" gets a very broad definition in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it has been less broadly applied by the FTC. The FTC has construed its authority under Section 5 not to extend to political or charitable organizations, for example. With respect to websites the FTC has used its Section 5 authority to bring enforcement actions against various commercial website operators that have violated their privacy policies or that have engaged in other practices that put consumer privacy at risk, such as failing to secure credit card information or retail transaction data. I am not aware of any enforcement actions against private parties for disclosing information that was provided to them by another individual in a noncommercial transaction.

The EU Data Protection Directive does not apply here for the simple reason that neither the Faculty Lounge servers nor any of its operators are located in any EU country. Of course, as you two are no doubt aware, the EU Data Protection Directive itself is not law; rather, it is a directive to the member states to adopt compliant laws, so to determine if the relevant law had been violated we would need to first determine which member state's laws applied and then consult that law. But none apply here for the reason I mentioned. US companies wishing to obtain data from European companies may, in effect, voluntarily subject themselves to the requirements of the Data Protection Directive by signing up for the Dept. of Commerce's EU Safe Harbor, but relatively few U.S. companies have done this; essentially only companies engaging in cross-border information transactions with partners located in Europe. There would be absolutely no reason for a noncommercial blog like the Faculty Lounge to sign up for the Safe Harbor, and a quick perusal of the list (http://safeharbor.export.gov/list.aspx) reveals that neither it nor Typepad is listed.

I would think that if you were going to try to make an argument that a private website owner were under some legal obligation not to disclose information you would try to make that argument using the Stored Communications Act. Many plaintiffs have tried to use the unauthorized access provision of the SCA, 18 U.S.C. s 2701, to argue that when promises about how data will be handled are violated, that constitutes unauthorized access to the company's own servers, but courts have uniformly rejected that argument. Slightly more promising would be 2702, which provides that "a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service." There's just a couple of problems with suggesting that it would prevent disclosure of identifying information concerning a blog commenter. First, there's considerable question about whether a website operator qualifies as a provider of an "electronic communication service." An ECS is defined for purposes of the SCA as "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." Some courts, for example the Ninth Circuit, have held that that includes websites which allow the posting of public or semi-public messages; but the better reading seems to be that it refers to access providers and intermediate communications providers, and not the provider of a destination for a communication, which would make all recipients into ECS providers.

Second, the provision I quoted above applies only to the contents of communications, not to customer records. The contents of the communication here are the contents of the comment itself, which was posted with the consent of the commenter on the website for everyone to see. Posting contents with consent is expressly permitted under the SCA. Customer records, on the other hand, are subject to a much less stringent set of protections. Specifically, ECS providers are free to provide customer records to whomever they wish other than the government: "A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service . . . to any person other than a governmental entity." So the SCA clearly would not prohibit the behavior alleged here.

Of course, what do I know, I'm only a law professor.

Personally, I tend to believe the claims of illegality are a bit overblown, but to turn it around, how much does it really matter? I suspect no one really expects the Feds to break down Leiter's door any time soon, whether or not it's technically illegal. But regardless of its legal status, it's certainly contrary to the reasonable expectations of those who post on a website maintained by law professors, and a breach of the administrators' ethical obligations to those posters, particularly when posters' information is revealed for the purpose of furthering Leiter's childish campaign against those who dared to disagree with him on the internet. Moreover, from a practical point of view, potential posters should probably be alerted to the fact that their personal information could be revealed if they engage in discussion of any sensitive topics (such as, as has been pointed out, VAPs' experiences with their VAP programs). So, really the legal status of the activity is beside the point–it should be condemned whether or not it's illegal, and people should be alerted to the potential release of their information, regardless of whether that release technically broke any law.

Except Leiter said he pursued the identity of one poster, "dybbuk," who did not "dare to disagree with him" but harassed and defamed a former student of his. That's a bit different.

Not really, since the parties being harassed by Leiter are not limited to "dybbuk," whatever the sins Leiter may have accused him of (and those "sins" are, at minimum, highly disputed). And anyone who actually believes Leiter's rationalizations at this point is extremely naive, really.

Let's get real here, Leiter has been bashing and trashing Campos for years, just google it. Anyone who believes anything Campos has to say about Leiter is the naive one.

And if this were just Paul Campos, perhaps skepticism would be more warranted. But it's not–the people reporting the harassment are not him. The issue exists separate and apart from the merits of the Campos-Leiter pissing match, whatever they may be.

As pointed out on the most recent Campos thread, the 'disputed' material that Leiter found so offensive that he needed to out 'dybbuk', despite Leiter's belief that it had been sanitized from the internet, can be found here:

http://72.30.186.176/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=dybbuk+leiter+sevel+aduren&fr=yfp-t-900&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=dybbuk+leiter+sevel+aduren&d=4743229608563280&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=rhf3qxPIbQVs-NTy3yjax767P-EyMPXI&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=G5EFO7z.Rnlw5PRsLaMKlg–

Note the, coincidentally of course, the chap 'dybbuk' is having the conversation with is none other that aduren, who has just been shown to be none other than Leiter himself (and who knows a hell of a lot about particular credentials of random dudes in law schools).

Also, 'anonymous2' – it's true that Leiter has been 'bashing and trashing' Campos for years, but that doesn't mean that any of it was called for, reasonable, or holds water.

And Despite Leiter's ridiculous claims that "[Campos'] colleagues consider him a creep and untrustworthy, and so they just steer clear," the below was just published – which pretty much affirms everything that Leiter was 'bashing and trashing' Campos for saying – and is signed by none other than Leiter's colleague Richard Posner:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/taskforcecomments/032013_coalition_revcomment.authcheckdam.pdf

Brian – face it. You've lost, everything. Nobody respects you. The conversation's moved past you. Just shut up. Nobody cares.

And no, TFL, I'm not expecting this point to remain up online very long or to not have my information shared with Brian Leiter. Because, Dan Filler, you're a creep and a coward.

At the very least, it seems like the other bloggers here would want to clear the air about whether anyone's information has been shared, and what policy (if any) exists for this blog.

Anonymous posters say Leiter "harassed them": not credible without evidence. Could all be the same person, or Campos for that matter. Campos says mean things about Leiter: not credible, given how much Campos hates Leiter (for good reasaon). Campos adduces silly circumstantial evidence to attribute a gmail account to Leiter, and then a hacker claims, without evidence, to have confirmed this: worse than not credible, corrupt. Campos harasses and bullies FL bloggers: that's clear and proven.

Although Campos now claims to be VERY concerned about protecting the anonymous VAPs posting on TFL, here is the latest from the individual whose offensive postings originally started this spat:

http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.ca/2013/03/dybbuks-groveling-apology.html

Forgive me if my feathers are not ruffled that someone (apparently not TFL according to Leiter) outed this individual.

This isn't going to any trial other than what people who read the accounts will choose to believe. It should be clear that there is some sort of relationship between Brian Leiter and the Internet commenter/stalker "Peter Aduren". Alternative explanations cannot be precluded (as of yet), but that is the most likely explanation.

Or maybe people will choose to believe that this whole thing is some fantasy inside Paul Campos' head. I'm sure anybody with any familiarity at all with Brian Leiter will doubt that explanation. I encourage everybody to google both their names and see who has a history of crazy behavior.

"Decency for a change" and Bob: I suspected that Paul might have been thinking along the lines that you two apparently are, that the FTC Act, California Online Privacy Protection Act, or EU Data Protection Directive might apply here. But none of them do. There is no general requirement under U.S. law that would prohibit the operator of a website from voluntarily disclosing an email address or basic log information such as an IP address to third parties. There are some laws and regulations that would apply to various *commercial* website operators, such as some of those that you cite, that would require either a disclosure of privacy practices or in some instances take affirmative steps to protect personally identifiable information. But none of them would govern here.

For example, the California Online Privacy Protection Act applies only to "[a]n operator of a commercial Web site or online service." The Faculty Lounge does not even have advertisements, which in any event would not be enough to make it "commercial," in my view. In addition, the California OPPA only governs the collection of information from an individual "who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit" from the website. It clearly does not apply here.

Section 5 of the FTC Act likewise only prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." Although "commerce" gets a very broad definition in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it has been less broadly applied by the FTC. The FTC has construed its authority under Section 5 not to extend to political or charitable organizations, for example. With respect to websites the FTC has used its Section 5 authority to bring enforcement actions against various commercial website operators that have violated their privacy policies or that have engaged in other practices that put consumer privacy at risk, such as failing to secure credit card information or retail transaction data. I am not aware of any enforcement actions against private parties for disclosing information that was provided to them by another individual in a noncommercial transaction.

The EU Data Protection Directive does not apply here for the simple reason that neither the Faculty Lounge servers nor any of its operators are located in any EU country. Of course, as you two are no doubt aware, the EU Data Protection Directive itself is not law; rather, it is a directive to the member states to adopt compliant laws, so to determine if the relevant law had been violated we would need to first determine which member state's laws applied and then consult that law. But none apply here for the reason I mentioned. US companies wishing to obtain data from European companies may, in effect, voluntarily subject themselves to the requirements of the Data Protection Directive by signing up for the Dept. of Commerce's EU Safe Harbor, but relatively few U.S. companies have done this; essentially only companies engaging in cross-border information transactions with partners located in Europe. There would be absolutely no reason for a noncommercial blog like the Faculty Lounge to sign up for the Safe Harbor, and a quick perusal of the list (http://safeharbor.export.gov/list.aspx) reveals that neither it nor Typepad is listed.

I would think that if you were going to try to make an argument that a private website owner were under some legal obligation not to disclose information you would try to make that argument using the Stored Communications Act. Many plaintiffs have tried to use the unauthorized access provision of the SCA, 18 U.S.C. s 2701, to argue that when promises about how data will be handled are violated, that constitutes unauthorized access to the company's own servers, but courts have uniformly rejected that argument. Slightly more promising would be 2702, which provides that "a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service." There's just a couple of problems with suggesting that it would prevent disclosure of identifying information concerning a blog commenter. First, there's considerable question about whether a website operator qualifies as a provider of an "electronic communication service." An ECS is defined for purposes of the SCA as "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." Some courts, for example the Ninth Circuit, have held that that includes websites which allow the posting of public or semi-public messages; but the better reading seems to be that it refers to access providers and intermediate communications providers, and not the provider of a destination for a communication, which would make all recipients into ECS providers.

Second, the provision I quoted above applies only to the contents of communications, not to customer records. The contents of the communication here are the contents of the comment itself, which was posted with the consent of the commenter on the website for everyone to see. Posting contents with consent is expressly permitted under the SCA. Customer records, on the other hand, are subject to a much less stringent set of protections. Specifically, ECS providers are free to provide customer records to whomever they wish other than the government: "A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service . . . to any person other than a governmental entity." So the SCA clearly would not prohibit the behavior alleged here.

In short, unless there is some other applicable law that someone can point me to, there does not appear to be any legal obligation on the part of a noncommercial website operator not to disclose comment registration or log information to third parties. Of course, what do I know, I'm only a law professor.

People should google "why Brian Leiter hates us" and "Brian Leiter, academic thug" for a sample of some of the stuff this guy has been up to in recent years. These accounts include allegations of both cyberstalking and anonymous trolling, and neither have anything at all to do with Paul Campos.

@ 11:39.

You're feathers aren't at all ruffled because you are Brian Leiter and you wanted the individual outed and he was being 'insolent' to you. Yes, we all get that. But see above, there were no offensive postings from this person. It's all a fantasy in your head, Brian.

Please just stop. It's over.

And @ 11:21 (also Brian Leiter) – Campos has neither harassed nor bullied TFL bloggers – he's asked very credible questions that arose basic on very specific circumstances about what happens with privacy information on this site and received no response. TFL needs to announce a privacy policy immediately.

w/r/t my above post @ 1:31 (aside from my typo of 'based' as 'basic):

The only reason that bloggers at TFL might feel harassed or bullied is because they don't want to answer a very simple question: did they give away posters' email and IP information to Brian Leiter?

The answer SHOULD BE a very simple, straightforward, NO – because doing such a thing is so obviously wrong.

However, as has been pointed out, they blog administrators must feel very uncomfortable answering this very simple, straightforward question, and thus are choosing to ignore Campos.

This in no way means that they are being 'bullied' or harassed.

Whether Leiter is a deeply dishonest obsessive cyber stalker is at this point precisely as interesting a question as whether OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife, and for the same reason. (No Brian, I don't think your behavior is as bad as Simpson's. Congratulations for hurdling that ethical bar).

I'm discounting this conversation, because there's no point in "arguing" with a sociopath.

The more interesting question now is why anybody would continue to associate professionally with Dan Filler, whose failure to deny that he facilitated Leiter's stalking behavior by improperly disclosing confidential information ought to ruin his professional reputation.

"The more interesting question now is why anybody would continue to associate professionally with Dan Filler, whose failure to deny that he facilitated Leiter's stalking behavior by improperly disclosing confidential information ought to ruin his professional reputation."

This is really an astounding statement, Paul, and I think a reprehensible one, based on the fact that your evidence that Dan has done anything wrong is a failure to deny conjecture, and based further on its utter lack of proportion to the venial nature of the suspected wrong: turning over the email and/or other information of a rude blog commenter to a third party. I believe you owe Dan an apology.

The reason Campos is asking for a denial in the first place is because he does not have perfect evidence that Dan Filler did this. He has a lot of circumstantial evidence from several independent sources. I am one of them. I received "threatening" emails last friday night from somebody called "Peter Aduren", who is now suspected of being Brian Leiter based on other online activity linking Leiter with Aduren.

I received the emails at an address that was only invented a day earlier and only for the purpose of leaving comments on blogs. I used it here and at 3 other blogs. The proprietors of those 3 other blogs (Volokh, Lawyers, Guns, and Money, and Inside the Law School Scam) have all expressly denied sharing my information with anybody. That leaves the Faculty Lounge.

My comments were indeed rude, so perhaps I deserved it, I guess that's for people to decide for themselves. However, nobody at the Faculty Lounge wrote to me to tell me to stop, or even delete my rude comments (they did do that eventually). Instead, they gave my email to some creep who wrote to ask me "how are things in Virginia?" and "everybody knows your IP number is xxxx." I hope we can agree that giving people's information away for the purpose of sending messages like that is not something people should be doing.

Campos owes lots of people an apology, but especially Dan Filler. But sociopaths do not apologize, do they?

Re: sociopaths, please google "why does Brian Leiter hate us" and "Brian Leiter, academic thug"

Let's have Dan give direct responses to the reasonable questions that were posed to him before it's decided whether he deserves an apology.

Dan – simple and straightforward question, please answer honestly: did you or any other The Faculty Lounge blog administrators give away posters' email and IP information to Brian Leiter? And/or does Brian Leiter have administrative privileges at the Faculty Lounge?

No evasions. Just a straightforward, honest answer, please. Lots of people are looking for an answer. (http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/07/blogospheric-rubbernecking/)

You've been ignoring this for a week (it seems like a week, anyway). How about an explanation, or an unequivocal denial?

This is really getting good now, we've got Burgess-Jackson in the mix. Google something like Burgess-Jackson and cyber-stalker or Burgess-Jackson and Leiter, and you can find out what a quallity witness you have!

Yes, its always somebody else persecuting Leiter.

This has left a cloud over this site (and perhaps one other site), over Professor Filler, and over all the regular posters and current visitors here. At least two professors know who turned over the information. If either of those two people has a sense of honor, he or she will step forward and acknowledge their actions. They can then defend or apologize for the acts, but decency demands that they at least own up to their actions and remove the cloud that sits above the others. Letting this affect the others lacks integrity.

I assume that Prof Filler does have a sense of honor and that he knows he participated in something horrible.

We all make mistakes, Dan. It's ok. But you're an adult, and you're a professional. Be an adult, and an honorable human being.

Do what's right. More than anything else, that's what's going to make you feel better at the end of the day.

It's called Taking Responsibility. If you have children, I'm sure it's a value you're trying to instill, for good reason.

Why do people respond to Campos just because he demands answers? Is he the police? A journalist?

Ignore him.

How is Campos relevant to this? This is an issue about this website's privacy practices, and perhaps Brian Leiter's campaign against those who disagree with him on the internet. At its core, it has nothing to do with Campos.

Actually, I kind of wish Campos would stay out of this one, because, although I think he's highlighting a relevant issue, he is transforming an issue about a website's privacy practices into Campos v. Leiter, round X.

I think Campos made the issue about him, if you follow the thread above. He seems to be defending dybbuk's right to make comments like that on another site linked to in the 8:37 comment, anonymously trashing a named individual applying for a teaching job. That does not seem appropriate to me.

And Dan –

Even though I'm asking you to be an adult and a professional and Take Responsibility, I understand that it isn't an easy thing to contemplate doing – because Leiter is presumably a friend of yours and you know how he'll probably react to your honesty.

Nonetheless, you need to do the right thing.

Not because Campos asked the question, but because you're honorable and didn't mean to get dragged into this, and because this isn't something you want to be associated with.

'Ganger' (Brian Leiter) –

Campos (and most everyone else who isn't Brian Leiter) does not believe that Brian Leiter should go 'outing' people on the internet in the hopes that they will suffer personal and professional consequences because they said things that Brian Leiter doesn't like and disagrees with.

If someone is applying for a teaching job, they should have appropriate credentials if they want to be hired. dybbuk raises legitimate questions about whether Sevel possesses such credentials.

Just because he's your little bum boy and you want him to get a job, doesn't mean he's qualified. And I agree with dybbuk's analysis that a summary review of what schools offer courses in maritime law or whatever does not constitute professional scholarship.

Anon 1:19 — I am not and have never met Leiter or his protege and have no idea of protege's credentials, but you have probably, through your "bum boy" comment, committed defamation per se against them. I am not sure why dubbuk needs to discuss the protege's credentials, unless the protege has appiied for a job with dybbuk, dybbuk is the one who is cyberstalking protege by posting unprompted abut protege.

Stop trying to derail things, Ganger. The main issues for the the Faculty Lounge are these:

Did Brian Leiter get access to the email or IP address of any of the posters on this site?

If so, how (who facilitated that access)?

What sort of privacy policy regarding such information does this website have?

And the main issues for you are:

Was it appropriate to publish the name and contact information of someone who sent you a snarky email, and was it also appropriate to contact his employer about the incident in an attempt to cause harm?

Was it appropriate to out a poster that criticized a protege of yours?

Is it appropriate to post under multiple pseudonyms while criticizing and trying to out those who post pseudonymously?