Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:29 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Feminist author Jessica Valenti described one appalling instance in which her breasts became the subject of a series of critical blog posts by a blogger apparently determined to use Jessica’s body to drive up her own readership:

Last year I had my own run-in with online sexism when I was invited to a lunch meeting with Bill Clinton, along with a handful of other bloggers. After the meeting, a group photo of the attendees with Clinton was posted on several websites, and it wasn’t long before comments about my appearance (“Who’s the intern?”; “I do like Gray Shirt’s three-quarter pose.”) started popping up.

One website, run by [University of Wisconsin School of Law faculty member] and occasional New York Times columnist Ann Althouse, devoted an entire article to how I was “posing” so as to “make [my] breasts as obvious as possible”. The post, titled “Let’s take a closer look at those breasts,” ended up with over 500 comments. Most were about my body, my perceived whorishness, and how I couldn’t possibly be a good feminist because I had the gall to show up to a meeting with my breasts in tow. One commenter even created a limerick about me giving oral sex. Althouse herself said that I should have “worn a beret . . . a blue dress would have been good too.” All this on the basis of a photograph of me in a crew-neck sweater from Gap.

I won’t even get into the hundreds of other blogs and websites that linked to the “controversy.” It was, without doubt, the most humiliating experience of my life—all because I dared be photographed with a political figure. [99]


Valenti’s breasts unexpectedly became a topic of conversation that embarrassed her, which, as she noted, led to negative commentary about various aspects of her person in many different Internet contexts. Rather than apologize for the discomfort she caused by exploiting her breasts, Althouse’s indignant response to Valenti was, in part, as follows:

I still maintain that it was absolutely justified to mock that photograph. Distort what I was really saying there all you want, but the fact remains: Cozying up to Bill Clinton is not something a feminist should be doing. You have never responded to what I was really writing about. You have instead chosen to attack me, and you’re doing it again, and you and your friends have leveraged what was a minor satirical blog post for your advantage. You’re exploiting it again and going through the whole routine of trying to ruin my reputation again. It’s an ugly way you’ve chosen to try to build a career as a feminist writer.

I’d love to see you take some responsibility for what you’ve done instead of whining that everyone’s talking about your breasts. I don’t give a damn about your breasts. What I care about is the way feminists sold out feminism to bolster the fortunes of the Democratic Party. But you will never talk about that, because you don’t have anything to say there. So it’s on and on about breasts, breasts, breasts, please don’t talk about my breasts. [100]


Then she featured derogatory, sometimes sexualized comments from her readers such as: “Valenti continues to milk her sagging ‘breast controversy’ for all its worth,” [101] egging on her readers to spew a long thread of aggressively rude comments. She also vehemently asserted that she, rather than Valenti, was the person who had been victimized. [102]

Even a feminist legal theory conference can provide blog fodder for someone willing and, maybe even eager, to expose professional colleagues to ridicule by strangers. When Ann Althouse “live blogged” [103] a conference called “Working From the World Up: Equality’s Future,” celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Feminism and Legal Theory Project, [104] the tone of her posts inspired misogynistic mockery in the comments threads at her eponymous blog. [105] Some of the people at the conference found this fairly alarming. [106]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:29 pm

Ann Althouse, University of Wisconsin School of Law faculty member wrote:In the blogosphere, it’s sort of like the Wild West, and you actually can try to push people out. You can push women out. There’s a way of trying to get women to leave and because it’s a rough world where people are trying to climb to the top, they will use whatever techniques they can, you know?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:30 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Students who participated on the university-focused Juicy-Campus’s websites often sought retaliation for bad romantic encounters, or for social slights that happened offline. One pundit described it as “a forum for exacting sweet, anonymous revenge.” [119] According to another observer, “If your aim is to build traffic, it’s a fair business plan: create a site for college kids to act like assholes to each other anonymously, wait for the hateful garbage to build up and for the media to cover resulting outrage, and enjoy the resulting hits.” [120] Certainly Vanderbilt’s JuicyCampus site received high traffic when someone posted about one student’s rape, with the assertion that she deserved what happened to her and that he wished he had been the one to rape her, writing, “what could she expect walking around there alone. everyone thinks she’s so sweet but she got what she deserved. wish i had been the homeless guy that f***** her.”

_______________

120. Posting of Ken to Popehat, http://www.popehat.com/2008/03/19/squeezing-the-juice (Mar. 19, 2008).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:31 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Given the poisonous climate in sectors of the Internet, the abject failure of efforts to foster online civility, and the prohibitive logistics of civil litigation, it is not surprising that opportunists would explore ways to lucratively mine the human misery caused by Internet harassment for riches.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:31 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Two of the AutoAdmit victims courageously responded to the harassment by filing a lawsuit, [133] which continues to wend its way through the court system. [134] This provoked one of the original defendants to file suit against them, on a variety of theories. [135] The online harassment targeting the AutoAdmit victims continues still, though in somewhat abated form. [136] Further, the duress, expense, and protractedness of the litigation process probably makes bringing a lawsuit an unlikely option for most people. But even if someone has the time, the money, and a good attorney, there is not a lot of helpful law to work with. And the blowback from at least one lawyer who dislikes the fact that two AutoAdmit victims decided to fight back was striking. Attorney Scott Greenfield asserted that the victims brought the abuse on themselves at his Simple Justice blog, writing:

While Heller and Iravani started out as the victims of malicious slurs on the discussion boards, they turned it around and went on the attack. The problem isn’t that they stood up for themselves, though many questioned their motives, calling them two elitist, self-centered brats who couldn’t bear not being in control of others. Some suggested that it was this demeanor that gave rise to their problems, bringing the ire and disdain of their classmates down on them like a hail of feces. After all, the attacks against these young women appeared to come from the same people they sat with daily. Maybe, just maybe, some of their classmates at Yale Law School didn’t think as well of them as they thought of themselves? [137]


According to Greenfield and at least one other attorney, use of the legal process to attempt to hold their attackers accountable for acts that a fact-finder might find tortious, was illegitimate. [138] But not to seek legal recourse would have rendered them powerless. This sets up the kind of double bind in which rape victims can be trapped: physically resisting a rapist may escalate the violence of the sexual assault, but failing to aggressively defend themselves can imply voluntary compliance. The victim risks additional injuries if she fights back, and no justice after the fact if she doesn’t.

_______________


137. Simple Justice, http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/02/17 ... feminists/ (Feb. 17, 2009, 06:39 EST).

Scott Greenfield, blog.simplejustice.us wrote:http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/02/17/are-attackers-awesome-to-feminists/

Are Attackers “Awesome” to Feminists?

I never visited AutoAdmit. I never read the crap that filled its discussion boards, where the “best and brightest” were given uncensored freedom to say what the would. What they said was disgusting and ridiculous, replete with vicious attacks and smears. No one with half a brain took any of it seriously, as it was just too bizarre and obviously baseless.

So much for the great minds that may one day sit on the Supreme Court. The students of our most prestigious law schools are as scummy, if not more so, than the rest of us. Free speech, in its rawest form, can be really ugly. But wholly uncensored speech was the primary reason for the existence of the discussion boards at AutoAdmit, for better or worse.

But two young women did, and were deeply hurt by things that were said about them. The story of Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani is old to the blawgosphere, but was given new life in a Portfolio article, which formed the basis of a post in Ann Bartow’s Feminist Law Professors. Bartow says these young women are “awesome”.

While Heller and Iravani started out as the victims of malicious slurs on the discussion boards, they turned it around and went on the attack. The problem isn’t that they stood up for themselves, though many questioned their motives, calling them two elitist, self-centered brats who couldn’t bear not being in control of others. Some suggested that it was this demeanor that gave rise to their problems, bringing the ire and disdain of their classmates down on them like a hail of feces. After all, the attacks against these young women appeared to come from the same people they sat with daily. Maybe, just maybe, some of their classmates at Yale Law School didn’t think as well of them as they thought of themselves?

But even if we assume that they are “awesome” for having stood up to the cyber-bullying, our “awesome” heroines switched roles when they went on the offensive. And offensive it was. Autoadmit was run by Jarret Cohen, who employed Anthony Ciolli, a Penn law student, to research law school rankings and law firms. Cohen was in charge of the rest of it. But when Heller and Iravani decided to go after someone, AutoAdmit and Cohen couldn’t be touched.

So the young women wanted blood for their tainted names. Apparently, they weren’t too concerned with whose blood it was.

In the 21 months since they filed suit, the women have already made some headway. But there are also accusations that the victims are becoming victimizers. Some of the defendants say the case amounts to an all-expenses-paid elitist temper tantrum in which two privileged women have cast an overly broad net, thus failing to differentiate between the really wicked and some of the tamer flamers, and have jeopardized careers in ways far more serious than theirs ever have been. One way or another, their suit highlights a culture and a legal system that still aren’t quite sure how freely people can or should speak online, how seriously to take what they say, and whether they can or should be sued for saying it.


The fight went to the firm that had offered a job to Ciolli after graduation, Edwards Angell, pressured to withdraw its offer. It did, and he was out of job.

Some concerned Yale students weighed a number of options. One was finding out the firm where Ciolli would be working upon graduation and pressuring it to withdraw its offer. It turned out to be the Boston law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, which in April rescinded its offer. The message board violated “principles of collegiality and respect that members of the legal profession should observe in their dealings with other lawyers,” the firm’s managing partner, Charles DeWitt, wrote Ciolli.


Then the lawsuit came.

Under Section 230(c), AutoAdmit and Cohen could not be sued. Neither, theoretically, could Ciolli, but he was nonetheless listed as a defendant—the only one charged under his real name. According to Lemley, the plaintiffs believed Ciolli had written some of the defamatory postings, making him vulnerable to a lawsuit. Ciolli counters that he was included either out of spite or to be held hostage until Cohen, over whom the women otherwise had no leverage, cleaned up his website. In November, without any explanation, Ciolli’s name was dropped from the case. “Even a middling law student at an unaccredited law school could figure out within five minutes of research that under Section 230(c), Anthony had complete legal immunity,” said his lawyer, Marc Randazza.


Since Ciolli was the easiest target, these “awesome” young women set about destroying his life. That he wasn’t the cause of their angst was of little concern. By falsely claiming he might have been one of the posters, they sought to use Ciolli to extort control from Cohen and force the removal of the offending comments. Ciollo was the pawn in their game, and they were more than happy to sacrifice the helpless pawn to get to the king. The victims became the victimizers, and Ciolli was the target.

Sickening their experiences undoubtedly were. But had anything anyone posted actually been illegal? A judge or jury might view some posts, like the specific calls to harass Iravani, as intentional infliction of emotional distress. But many other posts, however cruel, might not be seen as extreme or outrageous enough to lose their First Amendment protection. As for defamation, the overwhelming majority of the comments could be construed as opinions, which are protected. True, some statements, such as the ones claiming that the women had venereal diseases, were by definition libelous. But even here, context matters: Courts have held that given the juvenile and hyperbolic quality of chat-room rhetoric, online comments cannot be taken as seriously as those made in real life. Matt Zimmerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends old-fashioned free-speech rights in the online world, called most of the plaintiffs’ claims “extraordinarily, extraordinarily weak.” Their argument, he said, amounted to liability by association: that simply by participating in chats theoretically containing some unprotected speech, all posters were thereby culpable. He called that claim “wrongheaded and dangerous.”


Eventually, the action against Ciolli was dismissed, after his job was lost, he was put to the defense of a frivolous claim and his bar admission screwed up. So the only person who has suffered actual harm as a result of all this is Anthony Ciolli, at worst a bystander to free speech who failed, in the eyes of these two women, to obey their commands.

For those who believe that free speech is a worthy value standing alone, the ugly comes hand in hand with freedom. Ann Bartow enjoys her free speech when she posts about the “awesomeness” of her two heroines, omitting the details about the harm they caused. Where are the qualms about her two heroines’ efforts to undermine free speech for others? Does feminism demand that free speech be a one way street, going only in its direction? But speech is a right, no flesh or blood attached. It’s an easy victim, as it can’t scream out in pain. What about Ciolli?

Now I may be a bit blind to something, not being as politically correct as some, or perhaps not being as myopic as others, but I fail to see how anyone, regardless of one’s blind devotion to feminist orthodoxy, can call two women who wrongfully and disgracefully destroyed the life of a young man solely because he was the only one they could find to hurt “awesome”. Is there some disease that infects the feminist law professor mystique that relishes harming an innocent 20 year old male, no matter what?

Wow, Ann. Really “awesome”.


138. Id.; Posting of Mark J. Randazza to the Legal Satyricon, http://randazza.wordpress.com/?s=compet ... ne+awesome (Feb. 17, 2009, 20:08 EST) (“I too find nothing ‘awesome’ about bringing a lawsuit that, perhaps justified against some defendants, was clearly frivolous against others. . . . Worse than that, how they conducted themselves post-suit was clearly worthy of disdain, not praise.”); Posting of Mark J. Randazza to the Legal Satyricon, http://randazza.word press.com/2009/02/17/competing-views-on-the-auto-admit-story-define-awesome (Feb. 17, 2009, 16:58 EST).

Marc Randazza wrote:http://randazza.wordpress.com/?s=competing+views+on+the+auto+admit+story+define+awesome
Competing Views on the Auto Admit Story: Define “Awesome”
February 17, 2009

Image
Caps Lock: Awesome?

Portfolio Magazine recently did a remarkably in-depth piece on the Auto Admit story.

Never one to let facts get in the way of a good opportunity to make an unsupported swipe, Ann Bartow at Feminist Law Professors, probably one of the most intellectually dishonest “academics” to ever stain the title, crowed “Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani are awesome” and selectively quotes the parts of the Portfolio article that support her chosen perspective that these were “awesome” people.

Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice isn’t sure that Bartow understands the definition of “awesome.” He brings the other side of the debate forward: That Heller and Iravani were simply throwing a temper tantrum in the courts.

Now I may be a bit blind to something, not being as politically correct as some, or perhaps not being as myopic as others, but I fail to see how anyone, regardless of one’s blind devotion to feminist orthodoxy, can call two women who wrongfully and disgracefully destroyed the life of a young man solely because he was the only one they could find to hurt “awesome”. Is there some disease that infects the feminist law professor mystique that relishes harming an innocent 20 year old male, no matter what? (source)


I too find nothing “awesome” about bringing a lawsuit that, perhaps justified against some defendants, was clearly frivolous against others. These “awesome” individuals had to have known that their suit against Anthony Ciolli, “Beach Body Brady,” and Ryan Mariner (“A Horse Walks into a Bar Association”) had no foundation whatsoever – and the claims were questionable, at best, against others. Worse than that, how they conducted themselves post-suit was clearly worthy of disdain, not praise. Read this complaint and ask yourself if the defendants in this action were “awesome.”

While Heller and Iravani started out as the victims of malicious slurs on the discussion boards, they turned it around and went on the attack. The problem isn’t that they stood up for themselves, though many questioned their motives, calling them two elitist, self-centered brats who couldn’t bear not being in control of others. Some suggested that it was this demeanor that gave rise to their problems, bringing the ire and disdain of their classmates down on them like a hail of feces. After all, the attacks against these young women appeared to come from the same people they sat with daily. Maybe, just maybe, some of their classmates at Yale Law School didn’t think as well of them as they thought of themselves? (source)


Image
Witch Hunting: Not Awesome

I agree that the initial online smears against Heller and Iravani were unfair, uncool, and uncalled for — even if they might have somehow invited them (and I have no reason to say that they did invite them). Nevertheless, I find it impossible to agree that they were “awesome,” for how they dealt with it. If you are a victim of unfair treatment, fighting back is commendable. Simply flinging harm at other undeserving parties is not awesome in the least – unless one uses “awesome” in the context of “awesomely poor judgment” or “awesomely foolish” or “awesomely unfair.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:32 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Speech has consequences. Lies, implicit or actual, can inflict real monetary and emotional harms. [144] When people are lied about, they typically expect that some legal recourse will be available, but are often sorely disappointed. Defamation and privacy laws, as currently constituted and enforced, offer little in the way of protection from online harassment. By comparison, lying about a company or a product may be a violation of the Lanham Act. [145] Section 2(a) precludes the federal registration of disparaging trademarks. [146] Section 43(a) facilitates civil remedies for false advertising claims. [147] Section 43(c) protects famous marks against tarnishment, a form of trademark dilution. [148] When people are lied about, it seems reasonable for them to expect that some recourse at law will be available, yet legal options for individuals are far more limited than they are for companies seeking to protect the reputation of trademarks. Product signifiers have more reputational protections built into the law than people.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:33 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote: Bad actors who are determined to disrupt an Internet gathering can also attempt to exploit the positive values of the relevant online community. Feminism both values and depends on expressive freedom. [152] People who want to disrupt feminist spaces can appeal to the free speech instincts of a given group as a way to gain entry for the purpose of aggressively derailing conversations and fomenting discord. This was documented in a case study of a web based discussion that was targeted for trolling, which found that “feminist . . . online forums are especially vulnerable, in that they must balance inclusive ideals against the need for protection and safety, a tension that can be exploited by disruptive elements to generate intragroup conflict.” [153] Any online community that wants to welcome newcomers and encourage a variety of viewpoints risks having these admirable proclivities used against them by destructive people. When the lies and abuse occur online, the number of alternatives available to victims is even smaller than the rather pathetic tools available for addressing real space lies and abuse. ISPs, who are best positioned to identify malefactors and prevent or repair damage done online with words or pictures, [154] may not feel any obligation to behave in decent or ethical ways. And they are immune from defamation suits, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and virtually any other legal approach that might otherwise be available, [155] thanks in part to strong market demands for online pornography, which drove the lobbying efforts that resulted in ISP immunity. [156]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:34 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:In 1995, an anonymous person advertised t-shirts with “offensive and tasteless slogans” related to the then-recent bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. [161] The anonymous perpetrator instructed those interested in purchasing these t-shirts to contact a man named Ken Zeran. [162] Zeran had no role in posting this offensive text and was not even aware of its existence, but that changed quickly because the anonymous poster also provided Zeran’s home phone number. [163] Consequently, “Zeran received a high volume of calls, comprised primarily of angry and derogatory messages, but also including death threats.” [164] Zeran could not, as a practical matter, change his phone number to an unlisted one, “because he relied on its availability to the public in running his business out of his home.” [165] Zeran asked AOL, his ISP, for assistance in taking down the post and identifying the poster. [166] Despite the high number of angry phone calls and death threats directed at him, and AOL’s assurances that the posts would soon be removed, they never were. [167] A lawsuit Zeran later brought against AOL resulted in the Fourth Circuit ruling that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized AOL from liability for any harms its bulletin boards caused Zeran (the “Zeran Doctrine”). [168]...

This approach contrasts fairly radically with the way that Congress approached the relationship between ISPs and the music and movie industries. In the context of copyright law, ISPs have to remove potentially infringing material upon the request of the copyright holder if they want immunity for having allowed it to be posted in the first place. [173] Established by the so-called “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), [174] the procedure is called “notice and take down”; though it is sometimes abused [175] and compromises certain First Amendment values, [176] it works reasonably well at balancing the concerns of copyright holders with the logistical demands that policing content places upon ISPs. Protecting copyrights online has obviously been a governmental priority, unlike shielding online harassment victims.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:35 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:Reputation defense services likely also engage in practices known as astroturfing and search-engine optimizing, content-manipulation techniques that are killing some of the more democratic and appealing aspects of the Internet. [214] Astroturf is commentary that is manufactured to appear authentic, but is actually the product of deceptive public relations opinion-shaping campaigns. [215] It is Internet content that springs from artificial grass roots (hence the name) and is engineered to falsely appear as originating from diverse and geographically distributed, independently acting individuals. [216] Reputation defense services may be seeding the world wide web with astroturfing websites and blogs of their own creations to create a faux chorus of noise that drowns out speakers that their clients wish would “sod off,” whether for socially good reasons, or for bad.

Another avenue available to reputation defense organizations is Search Engine Optimizing, which has been characterized by at least one legal scholar as fraud. [217] It is an effort to manipulate search engine results for profit. [218] Navigating the Internet to find useful sites and desired information generally requires the use of a private, for-profit Internet search engine. [219] Though the United States government financed development of major aspects of the Internet, the “electronic superhighway” is very much a private thoroughfare. [220] The First Amendment may guarantee citizens certain speech rights on public streets and sidewalks, but there are no analogous rights or privileges in privately-owned cyberspace, and there are no digital equivalents to public streets or sidewalks. If a search engine ignores a webpage because it dislikes the content, or because it is paid by interested parties to do so, it is unclear whether the functionally silenced speaker has any legal recourse. [221] The interface between law and Internet search engines is still developing. [222] Search engines are not under any legal obligation to disclose how and why certain results are obtained or how they are prioritized. [223] They may choose to cooperate or collaborate with reputation defense services, or they may not. If the prospect looks attractive enough, they could start their own competing services, manipulating information far more effectively because they are in control of their algorithms. [224]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Internet Defamation as Profit Center, by Ann Bartow

Postby admin » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:36 pm

Ann Bartow, Internet Defamation as Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment wrote:... my criticism of David Lat’s penchant for running “hotties” contests at Above the Law, [115] in which the personally identifiable participants were often targeted involuntarily, and then publicly humiliated by having their physical appearances evaluated against their wishes.

_______________

115. Above the Law is a tabloid covering the legal profession. Above the Law, http:// http://www.abovethelaw.com (last visited Apr. 17, 2009).

116. Posting by David Lat to Above the Law, http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/08/ above_the_law_hotties_erisa_la.php#more (Aug. 30, 2006, 12:48 EST). Lat’s “contestants” were aggressively humiliated in the appended comments, as the reader can easily verify. Id.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 29738
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests