When Reporters Write A Story You Don't Like, Perhaps Don't Impersonate Them Asking For Sexual Encounters Or Nude Modeling Jobs
from the just-a-tip dept
Yikes. Last week, the blog "The Docket," which covers legal stories in Massachusetts, posted about an amusing, if slightly disturbing, email exchange between a recent law school grad, Jesse Clark, seeking a paralegal position, and the lawyer who (almost) hired him, Rosaleen Clayton. You should read the whole thread. It starts out with Clayton almost offering Clark a job, but expressing some concerns about his work, and suggesting that perhaps they try a few freelance (paid) projects, and if the quality is good, she would offer full-time employment. Now, you may or may not think this is a reasonable offer, and I can certainly understand why some job seekers might not like it. But the response should be to gracefully move on, seeking full-time employment elsewhere. Instead, Clark responded by claiming he didn't understand why she wouldn't offer full time employment based on his writing samples and good grades.Clayton, in response, gave a very honest assessment to Clark of her concerns. Some might consider her response a bit harsh, but it appears to just be honest constructive criticism -- which is actually quite useful. Clark responded defensively, and slightly threateningly (in saying he is going to call someone who works for Clayton and let them know that she wanted Clark to give a report on how she answered the phones) and the whole thing spirals completely out of control. We're not just talking about burning a few bridges here, but setting a whole town on fire. Clayton points out that Clark's response is probably not a good way to kick off a career in the tight-knit legal community, and Clark gets ever more insulting -- including the two statements that standout:
- What next? Do you want me to kiss your feet her Royal Highness?
- It's amazing that the Ma Bar lets women practice law. Shouldn't you be home cleaning and raising children?
In response to the report on The Docket, Clark apparently changed a male modeling profile he had set up so that it was in the name of The Docket reporter, Noah Schaffer, saying that Schaffer was available for nude photo shoots (this post also notes that Clark apparently posted a Craigslist post "responding" to Clayton's help-wanted ad, but does not identify the nature of this post). As for Kashmir Hill, she discovered (after getting a barrage of phone calls on her mobile phone from unknown men) that someone (who she suggests was Clark) put up a "casual encounters" ad with her mobile phone number and photo on Craigslist, suggesting she wanted to get together for casual sex.
Both Hill and Shaffer seem to take this in an amazingly good natured manner, though Hill points to recent case law of others posting such fake Craigslist ads being arrested and charged with various crimes. In Hill's discussion of this, she spoke with Shaffer who said that Clark:
"sent me a note threatening legal action, but then added that he'd take down the model site if I removed the blog item about him."Apparently, someone doesn't know when to quit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: impersonation, jesse clark, revenge
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he can have his mom call everyone involved and smooth out the situation.
Word of advice, the real world doesn't behave like a message board, facebook, or twitter. Trolls get shot down pretty quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AWWW but it was fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AWWW but it was fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://shillingmesoftly.blogspot.com/search/label/Jesse%20J.%20Clark
Read about his other escapades. Seems the man is built to make drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
youtube video of woman in question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expectation of privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expectation of privacy?
If you mail me a piece of paper through the normal ol snail mail I can photocopy it and hand it out to people on the street. I own that correspondence.
There is no expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expectation of privacy?
The email originally redacted the names of those involved, but apparently Clark responded publicly, revealing his own name and the name of the lawyer he interviewed with...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expectation of privacy?
Privacy is a level of trust between two individuals, not a byproduct of technology. If these two people did not agree on the conversation being private, then there should have been no expectation of such.
Also, just because someone sends an e-mail that says "this is confidential" at the bottom ... unless the receiver previously agrees to that condition before reading, it is in fact NOT confidential. The intention of the sender is great and all, but unless there are contracts and agreements, it's worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expectation of privacy?
I didn't say there was an expectation of privacy because it was an email. I said there was an expectation of privacy because of the context of a job application process. If you are applying for a new job, would you like those details to get back to your current employer?
Also, just because someone sends an e-mail that says "this is confidential" at the bottom ... unless the receiver previously agrees to that condition before reading, it is in fact NOT confidential. The intention of the sender is great and all, but unless there are contracts and agreements, it's worthless.
It is true that those types of one-sided conditions are not legally binding, but any reasonably ethical person should voluntarily abide by them, especially a lawyer and even more especially in the context of a job application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody...
Often disgusting, but funny nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careericide
Often linked to "foot-in-mouth" disease, this act typically results in trailers, moves to Des Moines, mustard stains, and many dining occasions at the local Denny's (typically one of the ones found in Des Moines).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careericide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careericide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
getting a job
And frankly, most job interviews are chemistry tests, not qualification reviews. And this interview is certainly a runaway exothermic reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, that made me laugh. Someone who, by the looks of it, is trying to make themselves unemployable "doesn't know when to quit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go man go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Risk: going to jail.
Reward: getting a job.
The risk is too great for the reward IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]