"Women named Jill and Hillary should be raped," read one of the postings by 'AK-47'.

Lawyers for the students have now determined the true identity of AK-47 -- and once his identity is revealed on court papers, his nascent legal career may be over before it really began.

The controversy began even before one of the women began law school in 2005.

Identified as 'Jane Doe I' in court papers, she was alerted to a comment thread on the AutoAdmit site titled 'Stupid Bitch to Attend Law School.'

The thread contained remarks such as 'I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly' and a reply claiming that 'she has herpes.'

The second plaintiff, 'Jane Doe II', also recieved similar treatment.

Although the lawsuit was filed one year ago, there has been silence from the litigants and their legal team.

Some lawyers are starting to wonder whether the case is worth pursuing.

"You have good lawyers putting their time in on the case, and in a policy sense, they are achieving something," said Professor Ann Bartow of the University of South Carolina School of Law.

"But in a victim sense -- assuming you think of the women as victims -- it's not clear what this is going to achieve."

Some feel that the case is symptomatic of a culture where technology changes so quickly that regulators are struggling to catch up.

"The internet isn't a radical-free zone where you can hurt people," said Professor Daniel Solove of George Washington University.

"But on the other hand, we can't have everyone rushing to the court, because the court is a blunt tool."

"We need something to help shape norms -- there needs to be some kind of push back against the notion that the internet is a place where you can say what you want and screw the consequences."

"That's not what free speech is about."

One solution that has been mooted is a regime similar to the DMCA, where intellectual property violations on websites are subject to a 'take-down' notice -- if the host complies, they are immune from further legal action.

But even that solution has detractors who feel that it threatens free speech protected by the US constitution.

"I think you run the risk of too much take-down," said Jason Schultz, acting director of the Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California in Berkeley.

"I think you need procedural hurdles in place since we are talking about a constitutional right."