Oh my God. This is sooooooo mean. I can't believe he wrote "I made a doody." in the body of the paper and sent a link to the Dean of the school. That's a first class a$$hole.

She's an idiot, but no one deserves that.

-s

Saurav,

honestly, i felt a bit conflicted, too. i read EVERYTHING (i.e. every comment in both threads) and was a little surprised by how much of a dick he was, especially WRT publishing her real name. i don't know that i would've done that for safety reasons...

still, i'm not as sweet as you. :) despite the twinge, i think it's hilarious. and that she deserves a li'l sum'n sum'n. like doody. :D

Why oh why did Turbanhead not send this to BluntInstrument? WHY, I ASK, WHY!?!

monkeythala... coz anna is a girl and is pretty :)

Yeah this is a little much. Yes, plagiarism is really, really awful but she seems to be a kid and is gonna hurt from this for a long, long time. Google is gonna ruin this girl for years to come.

The 'doody' line was funny though.

At the time she received the paper, she had not yet sent any money. All she had to do was look it over, realize it was full of shit, and panic because she still didn't have a paper for the next day.

I feel no sympathy as regards to the paper. This guy went out of his way to teach her a lesson - one she should have learned long ago. Experience is the hardest teacher, baby.

However, it wasn't cool to post her name and school on the internet. He has since changed it to Laura K. Krishna at India Community College, but many of the comments and indeed the archived title of the blog entry, have not been changed. Privacy is a Good Thing(tm) and should be respected - even the privacy of stupid people.

Morality and ethics aside (I personally think it was a wretched thing to do), the guy is just plain stupid. He committed a tort and can expect to get sued big time for it (public exposure of private fact, intentional infliction of emotional distress).

I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea what DesiOne is talking about. But if somebody approaches a comedian, it would seem to me that the comedian could write about the experience.

DesiOne: There was a contract in place between the two but isn't it null because the comedy writer's consideration (or obligation under the contract) is to commit an illegal act? It's been awhile since Business Law but I don't think their contract is binding.

Correct me if i'm wrong, of course. :)

Homegirl will get a rude awakening when she gets collared by her prof but posting her personal info and name online wasn't cool.

I think putting a good scare into her would have sufficed. Or even just letting her professor know. The contrast between the moral standard she broke and the punishment that was inflicted on her is really kind of outrageous. It also ruined a good joke, because the thing lost all the humor fo me since I was so mortified for this girl.

I almost hope he does get sued so he understands what retributive justice feels like :) Although if this girl gets any money out of this, it's outrageous. Sigh...no one to root for. I might as well go read the India/Pakistan arms race posts :)

Mmmmyeah...not so much on the tort angle. My usual warning - boring legal stuff to follow.

I have no idea what "public exposure of private fact" is. The only things I can think of are breach of contract (i.e. if you had an agreement with someone to keep something confidential. Laura could argue that that was implicit in their IM agreement - but it's weak. Also, probably no contract for a variety of reasons), and right to privacy stuff. BUT, the latter is most likely trumped by 1st Amendment, freedom of speech interests. (Basically, balancing test between the two.)

Intentional infliction of emotional distress has certain elements (language, and exact breakdown varies by jurisdiction):
(1) Defendant must act intentionally or recklessly;
(2) Defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and
(3) the conduct must be the cause
(4) of severe emotional distress

[3 is generally known as causation, sometimes proximate cause, while 4 is, of course, damage or harm.]

And priya's dead-on about the contract being null.

-D

ah, deepakutty, how you enchant me when you wax all legal and shit. :) i'm so glad we have your comments on this site.

:+:

p.s. i now suffer from your levantine disease. must. have. baby. okra. NOW. ;)

Outside of the potential privacy and IIED torts mentioned, is the underlying contract actually illegal per se? Plagiarism is a violation of university codes, but are there laws on the books that make it a crime to plagiarize? I would think that a contract between two people for a five-page paper is perfectly legal if the object of that contract is not a crime in and of itself? No?

Thanks, Anna-chechi :) EVEN MORE boring legal stuff to follow!

Victor:

Keep in mind the difference between civil and criminal law. Some actions can be litigated as both criminal and civil (ex. the O.J. Simpson trial.)

Criminal laws are "on the books" - i.e. exactly what the State must prove in each particular type of crime. Civil laws, on the other hand, a little more nebulous. Some civil law is codified in statutes. The U.S. is a civil law country - court decisions are based on statute and on precedent (i.e. prior court cases.)

Contract law falls within civil, not criminal law. It is largely based on the Uniform Commercial Code (the UCC)and the Restatement of the Law Second, Contracts (the Restatement.) Most states have codified most, if not all, of the UCC.

SO...turning to the facts at hand: plagiarism is not a "crime", i.e. it doesn't fall under criminal law. Contracts are usually termed null and void (or unenforceable), as opposed to illegal. You're right - someone can usually contract to have someone write something for them (hello, journalists!) The case law on this has changed somewhat. George Burns was involved with a contract case where he hired someone to ghostwrite a biography for him. The contract was declared unenforceable as against public policy (i.e. the court would not enforce a contract that purports to fool, or defraud the public.) That was back then - now, the public is not considered quite so gullible. :)

I think the analogy here would be that plagiarism would most likely be found to be against public policy, even though it is not illegal. Therefore, the contract would be unenforceable. (But, hey, that was never the question - i.e. I can't imagine either party suing for enforcement.)

Wow, that was long-winded. Sorry!

-D

Deepa,
I am surprised that you have never heard about the tort of public disclosure of private facts. This tort is on MBE as well. I am presuming you have not taken the Bar yet.
I love the intentional infliction of emotional distress cases. They are the wackiest.

deepa,

i think you're right that any contract here would be void as against public policy.

but the US is most certainly *not* a civil law country. in fact, you said it yourself, many of our legal rules are based on precedent and court decisions -- this is the hallmark of a common law system. France, Germany, much of the rest of Europe, and much of Latin America use civil law systems where all legal rules are code-based, not precedent-based. Its the difference between having a First Amendment and then a bunch of judge-made legal rules that spring from interpretation of that amendment (as we have) and having each of those legal rules codified in a Civil Code (which we do not have). also, we have an adversarial rather than inquisitorial judicial branch -- a common law characteristic.

Ack! I can't believe I typed civil instead of common! That's what I get for writing an overly long comment while in class! ;)

-D

Not sure what Business law-contracts has to do with torts, I never suggested a contracts claim (and for max recovery of what, $75?...who cares)

As for the torts, ditto what Al Mujahid said. Public disclosure of private fact is one of the privacy torts and this seems to be a classic case. Furthermore, I'd say theres a prima facie case given the elements of IIED which you listed...

(1) Defendant must act intentionally or recklessly;

- clearly intentional (with malice I might add, altho thats not an element)

(2) Defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and

-pretty outrageous to embarass the woman on the internet before thousands of people...AND to indentify her so clearly

(3) the conduct must be the cause

-very likely

(4) of severe emotional distress

-very likely. put yourself in her shoes

Theres enough to take it to trial. But I dont expect it to go to trial. I'd expect the dumbass to have to pay some sort of settlement.

i can't believe how many previously closeted lawyers there were/are on this blog. oh well, i guess everyone needs a space.

even though you monopolize the real world anyway :)

check the site again - seems to have found a resolution. THE GIRL TURNED THE PAPER IN AS IS. Suffice it to say she has learned a lesson.

This discussion is tortious, tortuous and torturous.

looks like the whole thing may be a prank:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/29/plagiarismseeking_im.html

i don't know about the "prank" angle...part of their "it can't be real!" argument is based on how it's apparently not logical for a christian school to teach a class on "hindu". um, yeah. REALLY strong point.

i went to private, religious schools for most of my academic life pre-college...we learned about EVERYTHING.

whether or not it's a prank, the comment threads over on AWOK are amazing to wade through. it's not every day that one gets to have a ridiculously engrossing mass-discussion on ethics. and doody. :)

I'm sure the university will punish her as they see fit, and it will be well-deserved.

I really hate that her name is all over the internet now, though. Destroying peoples' lives maliciously isn't what the web is supposed to be about. Teach her a lesson and turn her in because it's the right thing to do? Fine. Do it because you want to write about it on your web site and gain some notoriety? Not so much.

This discussion is both tortious and torturous.

Hahaha...Sumbuddy gonna geta hurt real bad...

Destroying peoples' lives maliciously isn't what the web is supposed to be about.

Hahahahahahahahaha. You're obviously right, but where have you been? Tony Eason? Jeff Gannon?

Wow. I'm impressed--so much latent legal firepower here on SM just waiting to burst forth. All it needed was a pin prick to come flowing out. You guys could start a law firm...or at least a bar exam prep course. Good luck to those taking state bars later this summer (esp those in Cali). Thanks.

where have you been? Tony Eason? Jeff Gannon?

Just 'cause it's the standard doesn't make it any less objectionable. And while I have no say in the content of this site, I actually think her real name should be taken out of the post. And yes, I know there's no way to completely erase it from the entire web, but removing it here would be a decent gesture.

And while I have no say in the content of this site, I actually think her real name should be taken out of the post. And yes, I know there's no way to completely erase it from the entire web, but removing it here would be a decent gesture.

it wasn't an attempt at indecency. i've been busy with work and i forgot that her real name was on here. it should be gone now. thanks for catching it.

it wasn't an attempt at indecency. i've been busy with work and i forgot that her real name was on here. it should be gone now. thanks for catching it.

You are absolutely wonderful.

Just 'cause it's the standard doesn't make it any less objectionable.

No, of course not. I was felt that, given the hurtful, attack-dog nature of how people get treated on the web, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the same tactics get turned on someone a little more defenseless. I guess I'm too cynical.

-s

I am surprised at the extremes the guy went to punish the girl. He could have screwed up her whole life for what might be a silly mistake in a tough day. What an nasty little tweet.

Doubt that the author's actions could be seen as outrageous or extreme enough to reach the level of any of the torts talked about here. The standard is a reasonable person. I hardly think that reporting plagiarism is that, think of all the schools that would get into trouble for expelling plagiarists. They could be sued for IIED.

BTW, I don't see what the author did as that horrible. What SHE did was horrible, diluting everyone's degree who got it the honest way. She didn't even pay him. Where's the outrage for that???

Doubt that the author's actions could be seen as outrageous or extreme enough to reach the level of any of the torts talked about here. The standard is a reasonable person. I hardly think that reporting plagiarism is that, think of all the schools that would get into trouble for expelling plagiarists. They could be sued for IIED.

BTW, I don't see what the author did as that horrible. What SHE did was horrible, diluting everyone's degree who got it the honest way. She didn't even pay him. Where's the outrage for that???

Your view is SO unreasonable ! :-)

What SHE did was horrible, diluting everyone's degree who got it the honest way. She didn't even pay him. Where's the outrage for that???

I don't think anyone is defending the girl. She's a rotten kid, and she should get punished per the policies of her university. There's no zero-sum here. I think her actions were awful, and I think his were malicious - but he seems to be getting a net gain out of this at the expense of her privacy, which just rubs me the wrong way.

And, if you think posting her full name on the web and attaching it to 'plagiarist' isn't "that horrible," you must not know how commonly people enter other peoples' names into google.

Too bad if this petty elitist don't get sued. I wish to God some smarter lawyer would soon rip him a new one, if the story is correct. Really, what is ethics anyway? Is there any point to ethics if there are no morals? Would you hang a fellow being just for the good of the society?