Spring Break
JuicyCampus doesn't deserve legal protection
by Rachel Horn
Op-Ed | 11/25/08
Posted online at 12:52 AM EST on 11/25/08
Ivester explains that it isn't up to JuicyCampus to decide what's defamatory because the site editors have no way of knowing. The only items removed are spam, posts that provide specific contact information and illegal hate speech.
However, users are allowed to submit unproven information, which, in many cases, is hateful, even if not aimed at race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. It's hard to ignore the defamatory tone of postings like "xxx has a fat ass and should be removed [from the list of hottest girls], and xxx and xxx are too dirty to be on here."
Using JuicyCampus is not an exercise of freedom of speech; it is a shield that ignoble and immoral people use to avoid being criticized while pointing petty daggers at others. There is no confidence in this.
Freedom of speech is a personal liberty and should be used to express personal opinions. Were the site blocked from our campus servers by school officials, Ivester's right to express himself freely on his site would not be diminished.
Ivester himself admitted in his interview that owning the site does nothing to support his personal First Amendment rights because he doesn't post there. Students using it to voice their opinions would still be free to speak their minds or start their own personal pages. Ivester, therefore, is not providing a conduit for free speech, nor is he heroically defending it. He's providing a hiding place for people too cowardly to exercise this right and accept the potential consequences.
As designed by our forefathers, freedom of speech serves four specific functions: to create a more adaptable and stable community, to assure individual self-fulfillment, to promote tolerance and to create a more robust and interesting community. JuicyCampus does none of those things. It is a sad irony that this right is being turned into a weapon of emotional violence and a tool for those of limited articulation.
That said, JuicyCampus is not the only site of this kind, according to Ivester. "JuicyCampus is in good company," he says. "It's not like JuicyCampus is some renegade site out there that refuses to delete posts, and we're such jerks. Google has the exact same policy for its search engine."
However, users are allowed to submit unproven information, which, in many cases, is hateful, even if not aimed at race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. It's hard to ignore the defamatory tone of postings like "xxx has a fat ass and should be removed [from the list of hottest girls], and xxx and xxx are too dirty to be on here."
Using JuicyCampus is not an exercise of freedom of speech; it is a shield that ignoble and immoral people use to avoid being criticized while pointing petty daggers at others. There is no confidence in this.
Freedom of speech is a personal liberty and should be used to express personal opinions. Were the site blocked from our campus servers by school officials, Ivester's right to express himself freely on his site would not be diminished.
Ivester himself admitted in his interview that owning the site does nothing to support his personal First Amendment rights because he doesn't post there. Students using it to voice their opinions would still be free to speak their minds or start their own personal pages. Ivester, therefore, is not providing a conduit for free speech, nor is he heroically defending it. He's providing a hiding place for people too cowardly to exercise this right and accept the potential consequences.
As designed by our forefathers, freedom of speech serves four specific functions: to create a more adaptable and stable community, to assure individual self-fulfillment, to promote tolerance and to create a more robust and interesting community. JuicyCampus does none of those things. It is a sad irony that this right is being turned into a weapon of emotional violence and a tool for those of limited articulation.
That said, JuicyCampus is not the only site of this kind, according to Ivester. "JuicyCampus is in good company," he says. "It's not like JuicyCampus is some renegade site out there that refuses to delete posts, and we're such jerks. Google has the exact same policy for its search engine."
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
sdfds
posted 11/26/08 @ 6:49 PM EST
wrong wrong wrong. I don't understand how brandeis students can be such idiots.
Are you going to censor me because I am expressing my free speech rights?
Alan Royals
posted 11/26/08 @ 11:59 PM EST
The opinion piece is nonsense, but something should be said about sdfds' lack of understanding of the first amendment, which protects the individual from prior censorship by the federal and, via the 14th amendment, state governments. (Continued…)
anon
posted 11/27/08 @ 7:56 PM EST
Justice Brandeis, Whitney v. California (1927): "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. (Continued…)
Post a Comment