I'm curious about the legal issue myself... I assume Khoo knows what best to do but if it was illegal porn posted, they'd have to take that down right? Or a post of hacked names/passwords? I would think a DMCA could force the web hosting service thing to stop hosting the site like happened in the past with piratebay, etc.
0
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
The best part about this post and that thread is that now I know other AXP bros read Penny Arcade.
I'm curious about the legal issue myself... I assume Khoo knows what best to do but if it was illegal porn posted, they'd have to take that down right? Or a post of hacked names/passwords? I would think a DMCA could force the web hosting service thing to stop hosting the site like happened in the past with piratebay, etc.
I think a lot of that is against the forum rules here, and so they would likely remove/edit those sorts of post on their own once it was seen by a moderator / reported. It's not that they don't have posts that are unacceptable / deleted / edited here, it's more that they decide which posts those are on their own, I think. That being said, I have absolutely no involvement in any of that here, so I'm pretty much just guessing.
I'm curious about the legal issue myself... I assume Khoo knows what best to do but if it was illegal porn posted, they'd have to take that down right? Or a post of hacked names/passwords? I would think a DMCA could force the web hosting service thing to stop hosting the site like happened in the past with piratebay, etc.
We'd take that stuff down anyway so it's a non issue.
0
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited November 2012
Protecting your handshake should probably be of less importance to your legal team than the rising hazing litigation, steadily increasing amount of diagnosed underage alcoholism, and steadily lowering employability for Greek students over the last ten years.
Greek life is awesome, and the traditions are important, but having seen the stats there is a nationwide decay in success outcomes from Greek students maybe the handshakes should go and more communication and substance education should be in their place.
Having worked with some Greek Life offices in the past, priorities always seemed way off from the success outcomes of their members- which is strange since those sort of lifetime partnerships are the entire purpose of the fraternity.
In case anyone is interested to the best of my recollection we've never removed anything from the forum on someone's request, and would only do it if it were something like a phone number posted without permission. If you post your own phone number and later want it removed we won't do it.
Wasn't there a guy (I'm not going to name names for obvious reasons) who decided to run for political office or something and asked for all traces of him (his posts, his profile) to be scrubbed off the forums?
That's what someone mentioned to me, when I asked why a certain really cool thread he made some years back wasn't coming up in search.
All knowledge of that event was scrubbed from Tube's mind immediately afterwards, the Admins here are exceptionally thorough.
I did think of mentioning that but I try and keep it on the down low because we get a pretty high volume of people asking for things like account deletions and I didn't want to give them an excuse that has historically worked.
Protecting your handshake should probably be of less importance to your legal team than the rising hazing litigation, steadily increasing amount of diagnosed underage alcoholism, and steadily lowering employability for Greek students over the last ten years.
you know what woud reduce underage alcoholism? Lowering the drinking age.
I'd be curious to see some figures, because most of my fraternity brothers were teetotalers, but is underage alcoholism rising significantly in the greek system as opposed to elsewhere, or is it more of a universal problem?
In case anyone is interested to the best of my recollection we've never removed anything from the forum on someone's request, and would only do it if it were something like a phone number posted without permission. If you post your own phone number and later want it removed we won't do it.
Wasn't there a guy (I'm not going to name names for obvious reasons) who decided to run for political office or something and asked for all traces of him (his posts, his profile) to be scrubbed off the forums?
That's what someone mentioned to me, when I asked why a certain really cool thread he made some years back wasn't coming up in search.
All knowledge of that event was scrubbed from Tube's mind immediately afterwards, the Admins here are exceptionally thorough.
I did think of mentioning that but I try and keep it on the down low because we get a pretty high volume of people asking for things like account deletions and I didn't want to give them an excuse that has historically worked.
Barack Obama was the user, wasn't it. Didn't want America to see his posts about how awesome it is to be Kenyan.
And just because you or Gabe might think it's silly, well that doesn't mean you can be a dick about it.
I am reasonably...nay, totally certain that they can be a dick about it. They can set whatever policy they want, up to and including a refusal to remove any content unless they feel like it. I think that's the entire point of the comic.
The most amusing thing about this, to me, is that the original "offending" post looked completely like a spam post - I would've completely disregarded it as crap if I had come upon it in the thread.
Now, of course, it's essentially been verified as legitimate and accurate. Oops!
Someone else posted the comment about the group. They don't seem to have had anything to do with it.
So a third party posted things that this sorority wanted to keep secret?
Sounds like it's the sorority's fault for telling their secrets to the third party, and PA doesn't have shit to do with it.
No, it sounds more like a former member of the sorority that is clearly pissed off. It's not the same thing as you making a stupid post and regretting it later. It's someone betraying information about you and your organization that you're trying to have removed. Someone else caused the damage, and now we're just telling the 'victim' to piss off. I would imagine the response would be far, far different if something like that happened to Child's Play.
Honestly, what is the issue with removing that post? It caused enough of an issue for them to make a comic about it. It's not on the level of people flipping out about the Dickwolves or the American Greeting stuff, sure. I wouldn't think that would be necessary. :-/
Someone else posted the comment about the group. They don't seem to have had anything to do with it.
So a third party posted things that this sorority wanted to keep secret?
Sounds like it's the sorority's fault for telling their secrets to the third party, and PA doesn't have shit to do with it.
No, it sounds more like a former member of the sorority that is clearly pissed off. It's not the same thing as you making a stupid post and regretting it later. It's someone betraying information about you and your organization that you're trying to have removed. Someone else caused the damage, and now we're just telling the 'victim' to piss off. I would imagine the response would be far, far different if something like that happened to Child's Play.
Honestly, what is the issue with removing that post? It caused enough of an issue for them to make a comic about it. It's not on the level of people flipping out about the Dickwolves or the American Greeting stuff, sure. I wouldn't think that would be necessary. :-/
The most obvious, practical reason is that the forum staff don't want to become information janitors. Additionally, Jerry (at the very least) has a pretty clearly articulated stance as regards speech and chilling effects. But, more to the point, given things like the Dickwolves and Strawberry Shortcake have happened, I can see where they take a dim view of someone telling them to remove content from their website, whether or not they were involved in the creation of that content, whether or not there's a 'good reason' to do it.
I'll be honest, this seemed like a feeble attempt at stirring up some controversy. AFAIK the fraternity filed one letter with the PA guys asking to remove the content. It sounded pushy in that sort of "here's your traffic ticket, see you court" sort of way, but I have no idea if PA has even politely declined yet. Their decline apparently is yesterday's comic. This was nowhere near the sort of Paul Cristoforo-level of BS that would warrant a full blown comic and blog post.
Guess I'm just trying to say I'd rather have a comic about all the major video games that have released lately, but that's just me.
I'll be honest, this seemed like a feeble attempt at stirring up some controversy. AFAIK the fraternity filed one letter with the PA guys asking to remove the content. It sounded pushy in that sort of "here's your traffic ticket, see you court" sort of way, but I have no idea if PA has even politely declined yet. Their decline apparently is yesterday's comic. This was nowhere near the sort of Paul Cristoforo-level of BS that would warrant a full blown comic and blog post.
Guess I'm just trying to say I'd rather have a comic about all the major video games that have released lately, but that's just me.
Go back a day then?
Its not like they've entirely shifted focus here they just decided to comment on something in a.humorous way
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
The most obvious, practical reason is that the forum staff don't want to become information janitors. Additionally, Jerry (at the very least) has a pretty clearly articulated stance as regards speech and chilling effects. But, more to the point, given things like the Dickwolves and Strawberry Shortcake have happened, I can see where they take a dim view of someone telling them to remove content from their website, whether or not they were involved in the creation of that content, whether or not there's a 'good reason' to do it.
I dunno...I guess if removing information is a thing, I don't see why you would take the low road by making a comment and a newspost about it. Jerry discussed the Streisand Effect, and they are the ones actually doing it. If you're not going to remove content, I don't see why at the very least you can't say "no eff off" to the organization and let that die. By bringing the whole issue to everyone's attention they're putting the sorority in the same bucket as that Jack Thompson guy. I guess that just doesn't sit right with me.
0
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
(I will preface this by saying the following is my own perspective, and I do not endeavor to speak for anyone else.)
Look, here's how it works: This site, and these forums, see a lot of traffic. A lot. Mostly, that's fine. If you're here to post dumb shit, awesome. That scenario is well in hand. If you want to make threads to post dumb shit in, also awesome. That infrastructure is in place! Wanna PM your friends? Go to town!
But sometimes, people want things that are out of the ordinary. They want exceptions to be made, for one reason or another. Maybe they're running for office, and they want all their old posts removed. Maybe they signed up when they were drunk and they want a username that doesn't have a bunch of numbers in it. The thing is, by virtue of the volume of traffic, even the relatively rare exceptions come in way too fast for the relative few staffing the place to possibly give everyone everything they want. Doing things takes time and effort, and if you grant one person an exception, the next person is going to piss and moan all the harder if you don't grant them theirs.
So the unwritten, unofficial general policy is something like this: This is not your site. Life is unfair. Either deal with it, or leave.
Now, this is not to say that exceptions are never made! But the sheer volume of bullshit directed at the staff has understandably effected a very low tolerance for bullshit. If you come at them with your bullshit, you will be shut down. You think whoever it was who was running for office came at them all lawyered up? You think they were making demands? Or do you think maybe they asked respectfully, maybe they made it clear they understood what they were asking for, and that they weren't owed anything?
If you've got a problem, and if you're going to ask the folks who run this forum and this site to take your problem and make it their problem, you'd best come hat in hand, say pretty please, and cross your fingers. Because you don't pay for these forums. You don't maintain them. You just use them, at the pleasure of the people who do pay for and maintain them.
This is not your site. Life is unfair. Either deal with it, or leave.
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
Protecting your handshake should probably be of less importance to your legal team than the rising hazing litigation, steadily increasing amount of diagnosed underage alcoholism, and steadily lowering employability for Greek students over the last ten years.
Greek life is awesome, and the traditions are important, but having seen the stats there is a nationwide decay in success outcomes from Greek students maybe the handshakes should go and more communication and substance education should be in their place.
Having worked with some Greek Life offices in the past, priorities always seemed way off from the success outcomes of their members- which is strange since those sort of lifetime partnerships are the entire purpose of the fraternity.
the problem is that the university greek life folks, the national orgs and the students all have different priorities.
the university offices are basically PR management organs and structure their priorities accordingly, whether or not it makes any sense for the chapters. National organizations are little bit better, but a lot of them still seem more interested in 'how can we grow the foundation' than anything else. And students obviously make dumb decisions and frequently prioritize the wrong things (i.e. partying.)
Sometimes all that stuff coincides in a good way; one example is the hazing issue, which has mostly been dealt with effectively. Other times, not so much.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'll be honest, this seemed like a feeble attempt at stirring up some controversy. AFAIK the fraternity filed one letter with the PA guys asking to remove the content. It sounded pushy in that sort of "here's your traffic ticket, see you court" sort of way, but I have no idea if PA has even politely declined yet. Their decline apparently is yesterday's comic. This was nowhere near the sort of Paul Cristoforo-level of BS that would warrant a full blown comic and blog post.
Guess I'm just trying to say I'd rather have a comic about all the major video games that have released lately, but that's just me.
Go back a day then?
Its not like they've entirely shifted focus here they just decided to comment on something in a.humorous way
Except that the previous 2 comics weren't about games either.....
And really, I know the score, I've been reading the site for many years so its not like this is surprising or anything, but I guess this one just made me go "why?" when other off-topic comics actually have been pretty fun in the past. I'm not sure what it was about this one, but it just struck me as really artificial.
In other words, I'm not personally upset and I'd be pretty surprised if anyone was, I just couldn't get behind whatever controversy was trying to be stirred up here.
I saw another comment on it from another website somewhere, saying that calling a secret handshake a trade secret is like calling a pinky promise a legal contract, which I found amusing.
I don't know, I'd say that it's pretty easy to define sending spurious legal requests as the mark of a bully. I don't feel bad when bullies don't get their way.
I don't know, I'd say that it's pretty easy to define sending spurious legal requests as the mark of a bully. I don't feel bad when bullies don't get their way.
We ask that you expeditiously respond to this notice by immediately removing or disabling
access to this infringing material including, but not limited to, removing the entire posting and all
replies. Please promptly confirm any action that you take within ten (10) business days of receipt
of this letter.
That's...not bullying. That's asking that it be removed, but using your legal counsel to do it. That's not something unprecedented, it's sensible when dealing with another entity. Frankly I thought this was about as polite a request as it can be from a legal standpoint. There's no threat...they ask essentially for acknowledgment of the letter. They can, and apparently did, just tell them to piss off, which fulfills the request.
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I don't know, I'd say that it's pretty easy to define sending spurious legal requests as the mark of a bully. I don't feel bad when bullies don't get their way.
We ask that you expeditiously respond to this notice by immediately removing or disabling
access to this infringing material including, but not limited to, removing the entire posting and all
replies. Please promptly confirm any action that you take within ten (10) business days of receipt
of this letter.
That's...not bullying. That's asking that it be removed, but using your legal counsel to do it. That's not something unprecedented, it's sensible when dealing with another entity. Frankly I thought this was about as polite a request as it can be from a legal standpoint. There's no threat...they ask essentially for acknowledgment of the letter. They can, and apparently did, just tell them to piss off, which fulfills the request.
If you legitimately can't see how a letter from a lawyer would be construed as threatening, regardless of tone, it's possible you haven't known many lawyers. Or litigious people, I guess.
The law is force; that is what it is for. It is a set of rules and institutions designed to parameterize what conduct is and is not acceptable within society. Lawyers utilize the civil portion of that system to induce behavior. That letter is, in effect, a club. It may be padded in velvet and kitten fur, but it's still a tool to force someone to behave in a way they haven't thus far. If it had been from whoever runs the sorority's media department, basically saying 'Hi it would be really great if you guys could help us out here', I might be more inclined to agree, but from a lawyer it's just a threat.
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Basically using a lawyer is saying 'you are a couple of steps from a legal battle' which would put anyone in the position of feeling opposed to the sender instead of a person who could help someone asking for it.
I don't know, I'd say that it's pretty easy to define sending spurious legal requests as the mark of a bully. I don't feel bad when bullies don't get their way.
We ask that you expeditiously respond to this notice by immediately removing or disabling
access to this infringing material including, but not limited to, removing the entire posting and all
replies. Please promptly confirm any action that you take within ten (10) business days of receipt
of this letter.
That's...not bullying. That's asking that it be removed, but using your legal counsel to do it. That's not something unprecedented, it's sensible when dealing with another entity. Frankly I thought this was about as polite a request as it can be from a legal standpoint. There's no threat...they ask essentially for acknowledgment of the letter. They can, and apparently did, just tell them to piss off, which fulfills the request.
If you legitimately can't see how a letter from a lawyer would be construed as threatening, regardless of tone, it's possible you haven't known many lawyers. Or litigious people, I guess.
The law is force; that is what it is for. It is a set of rules and institutions designed to parameterize what conduct is and is not acceptable within society. Lawyers utilize the civil portion of that system to induce behavior. That letter is, in effect, a club. It may be padded in velvet and kitten fur, but it's still a tool to force someone to behave in a way they haven't thus far. If it had been from whoever runs the sorority's media department, basically saying 'Hi it would be really great if you guys could help us out here', I might be more inclined to agree, but from a lawyer it's just a threat.
The Good Doctor is very articulate. Also considering how trivial the matter the threat of legal force is being made over is, I think calling it bullying is pretty accurate. Empty, buffoonish bullying, but bullying nonetheless.
Using a lawyer is ensuring that you don't screw up in your email to a clearly much larger entity and create a new problem.
I'm still on about how the sorority was minding its own business, bothering no one, and suddenly some asshat posts their stuff. They want to have it removed. It's like someone you know took a bad picture of you while you were drunk, and posted it on a forum after you had a bit of a tiff. I guess you shouldn't have been drinking or going out with friends or whatever - keep that in mind when your build your time machine - but the problem is not with you, but with the guy posting. And in asking the forum to remove that, instead it gets posted everywhere. The Streisand Effect was caused by Streisand herself. This effect was caused by Gabe.
At the very least, use it as some form of blackmail. "Yeah we can remove it, but we would like to see a contribution to Child's Play..." I could respect such extortion.
As someone who was for a few years in possession of the easiest to find email address on this site, I've never received a lawyer's letter that wasn't intended to scare us into some kind of action. In fact, every case has been like this one, where someone with no legal recourse is attempting to get you to do something with an implied legal threat. I once genuinely received an email from a woman threatening to get her lawyers involved because someone on these forums had called her a bad friend
I don't know, I'd say that it's pretty easy to define sending spurious legal requests as the mark of a bully. I don't feel bad when bullies don't get their way.
We ask that you expeditiously respond to this notice by immediately removing or disabling
access to this infringing material including, but not limited to, removing the entire posting and all
replies. Please promptly confirm any action that you take within ten (10) business days of receipt
of this letter.
That's...not bullying. That's asking that it be removed, but using your legal counsel to do it. That's not something unprecedented, it's sensible when dealing with another entity. Frankly I thought this was about as polite a request as it can be from a legal standpoint. There's no threat...they ask essentially for acknowledgment of the letter. They can, and apparently did, just tell them to piss off, which fulfills the request.
Using a lawyer fraudulently by being completely misleading about what the law is in an attempt to force someone to do something they aren't required to do by suggesting it's illegal (when it is not) is bullying.
Posts
Right on.
I think a lot of that is against the forum rules here, and so they would likely remove/edit those sorts of post on their own once it was seen by a moderator / reported. It's not that they don't have posts that are unacceptable / deleted / edited here, it's more that they decide which posts those are on their own, I think. That being said, I have absolutely no involvement in any of that here, so I'm pretty much just guessing.
We'd take that stuff down anyway so it's a non issue.
Greek life is awesome, and the traditions are important, but having seen the stats there is a nationwide decay in success outcomes from Greek students maybe the handshakes should go and more communication and substance education should be in their place.
Having worked with some Greek Life offices in the past, priorities always seemed way off from the success outcomes of their members- which is strange since those sort of lifetime partnerships are the entire purpose of the fraternity.
I did think of mentioning that but I try and keep it on the down low because we get a pretty high volume of people asking for things like account deletions and I didn't want to give them an excuse that has historically worked.
[citation needed]
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
I'd be curious to see some figures, because most of my fraternity brothers were teetotalers, but is underage alcoholism rising significantly in the greek system as opposed to elsewhere, or is it more of a universal problem?
Barack Obama was the user, wasn't it. Didn't want America to see his posts about how awesome it is to be Kenyan.
STEAM
I am reasonably...nay, totally certain that they can be a dick about it. They can set whatever policy they want, up to and including a refusal to remove any content unless they feel like it. I think that's the entire point of the comic.
So a third party posted things that this sorority wanted to keep secret?
Sounds like it's the sorority's fault for telling their secrets to the third party, and PA doesn't have shit to do with it.
Now, of course, it's essentially been verified as legitimate and accurate. Oops!
No, it sounds more like a former member of the sorority that is clearly pissed off. It's not the same thing as you making a stupid post and regretting it later. It's someone betraying information about you and your organization that you're trying to have removed. Someone else caused the damage, and now we're just telling the 'victim' to piss off. I would imagine the response would be far, far different if something like that happened to Child's Play.
Honestly, what is the issue with removing that post? It caused enough of an issue for them to make a comic about it. It's not on the level of people flipping out about the Dickwolves or the American Greeting stuff, sure. I wouldn't think that would be necessary. :-/
The most obvious, practical reason is that the forum staff don't want to become information janitors. Additionally, Jerry (at the very least) has a pretty clearly articulated stance as regards speech and chilling effects. But, more to the point, given things like the Dickwolves and Strawberry Shortcake have happened, I can see where they take a dim view of someone telling them to remove content from their website, whether or not they were involved in the creation of that content, whether or not there's a 'good reason' to do it.
Guess I'm just trying to say I'd rather have a comic about all the major video games that have released lately, but that's just me.
Go back a day then?
Its not like they've entirely shifted focus here they just decided to comment on something in a.humorous way
Well regarding the information 'janitoring': (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/09/01) lol ;-D
I dunno...I guess if removing information is a thing, I don't see why you would take the low road by making a comment and a newspost about it. Jerry discussed the Streisand Effect, and they are the ones actually doing it. If you're not going to remove content, I don't see why at the very least you can't say "no eff off" to the organization and let that die. By bringing the whole issue to everyone's attention they're putting the sorority in the same bucket as that Jack Thompson guy. I guess that just doesn't sit right with me.
Look, here's how it works: This site, and these forums, see a lot of traffic. A lot. Mostly, that's fine. If you're here to post dumb shit, awesome. That scenario is well in hand. If you want to make threads to post dumb shit in, also awesome. That infrastructure is in place! Wanna PM your friends? Go to town!
But sometimes, people want things that are out of the ordinary. They want exceptions to be made, for one reason or another. Maybe they're running for office, and they want all their old posts removed. Maybe they signed up when they were drunk and they want a username that doesn't have a bunch of numbers in it. The thing is, by virtue of the volume of traffic, even the relatively rare exceptions come in way too fast for the relative few staffing the place to possibly give everyone everything they want. Doing things takes time and effort, and if you grant one person an exception, the next person is going to piss and moan all the harder if you don't grant them theirs.
So the unwritten, unofficial general policy is something like this: This is not your site. Life is unfair. Either deal with it, or leave.
Now, this is not to say that exceptions are never made! But the sheer volume of bullshit directed at the staff has understandably effected a very low tolerance for bullshit. If you come at them with your bullshit, you will be shut down. You think whoever it was who was running for office came at them all lawyered up? You think they were making demands? Or do you think maybe they asked respectfully, maybe they made it clear they understood what they were asking for, and that they weren't owed anything?
If you've got a problem, and if you're going to ask the folks who run this forum and this site to take your problem and make it their problem, you'd best come hat in hand, say pretty please, and cross your fingers. Because you don't pay for these forums. You don't maintain them. You just use them, at the pleasure of the people who do pay for and maintain them.
This is not your site. Life is unfair. Either deal with it, or leave.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
the problem is that the university greek life folks, the national orgs and the students all have different priorities.
the university offices are basically PR management organs and structure their priorities accordingly, whether or not it makes any sense for the chapters. National organizations are little bit better, but a lot of them still seem more interested in 'how can we grow the foundation' than anything else. And students obviously make dumb decisions and frequently prioritize the wrong things (i.e. partying.)
Sometimes all that stuff coincides in a good way; one example is the hazing issue, which has mostly been dealt with effectively. Other times, not so much.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
http://lawofficeofstephennicholson.tumblr.com/post/36156643153/phi-sigma-sigma-v-penny-arcade
http://lawofficeofstephennicholson.tumblr.com/post/36158144007/research
First time to PA, eh? Well make yourself at home, but I'd suggest reading the rules if you're going to do any serious posting.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Except that the previous 2 comics weren't about games either.....
And really, I know the score, I've been reading the site for many years so its not like this is surprising or anything, but I guess this one just made me go "why?" when other off-topic comics actually have been pretty fun in the past. I'm not sure what it was about this one, but it just struck me as really artificial.
In other words, I'm not personally upset and I'd be pretty surprised if anyone was, I just couldn't get behind whatever controversy was trying to be stirred up here.
I saw another comment on it from another website somewhere, saying that calling a secret handshake a trade secret is like calling a pinky promise a legal contract, which I found amusing.
STEAM
Exactly.
The secret has no actual value. Complying with the request won't add up to squat.
We ask that you expeditiously respond to this notice by immediately removing or disabling
access to this infringing material including, but not limited to, removing the entire posting and all
replies. Please promptly confirm any action that you take within ten (10) business days of receipt
of this letter.
That's...not bullying. That's asking that it be removed, but using your legal counsel to do it. That's not something unprecedented, it's sensible when dealing with another entity. Frankly I thought this was about as polite a request as it can be from a legal standpoint. There's no threat...they ask essentially for acknowledgment of the letter. They can, and apparently did, just tell them to piss off, which fulfills the request.
You have to be Jesus to never be a dick however. Everyone has moments of dicktation this letter being one which gabe felt like responding to in kind.
If you legitimately can't see how a letter from a lawyer would be construed as threatening, regardless of tone, it's possible you haven't known many lawyers. Or litigious people, I guess.
The law is force; that is what it is for. It is a set of rules and institutions designed to parameterize what conduct is and is not acceptable within society. Lawyers utilize the civil portion of that system to induce behavior. That letter is, in effect, a club. It may be padded in velvet and kitten fur, but it's still a tool to force someone to behave in a way they haven't thus far. If it had been from whoever runs the sorority's media department, basically saying 'Hi it would be really great if you guys could help us out here', I might be more inclined to agree, but from a lawyer it's just a threat.
The Good Doctor is very articulate. Also considering how trivial the matter the threat of legal force is being made over is, I think calling it bullying is pretty accurate. Empty, buffoonish bullying, but bullying nonetheless.
I'm still on about how the sorority was minding its own business, bothering no one, and suddenly some asshat posts their stuff. They want to have it removed. It's like someone you know took a bad picture of you while you were drunk, and posted it on a forum after you had a bit of a tiff. I guess you shouldn't have been drinking or going out with friends or whatever - keep that in mind when your build your time machine - but the problem is not with you, but with the guy posting. And in asking the forum to remove that, instead it gets posted everywhere. The Streisand Effect was caused by Streisand herself. This effect was caused by Gabe.
At the very least, use it as some form of blackmail. "Yeah we can remove it, but we would like to see a contribution to Child's Play..." I could respect such extortion.
Using a lawyer fraudulently by being completely misleading about what the law is in an attempt to force someone to do something they aren't required to do by suggesting it's illegal (when it is not) is bullying.