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
Infamous gossip Web site JuicyCampus.com is not merely a challenge to free speech; it is a manipulation of one of our country's foundational privileges to provide a venue in which individuals are aided to abuse others freely.
The original premise of JuicyCampus, site creator Matt Ivester told the Justice, is to be a place where students can post their opinions on their respective campus' day-to-day events-topics like quirky professors, great lectures or upcoming weekend events.
If you've been on the site, however, then you know that few of the posts, if any, follow these lines. The site has become a sounding board for students to post intimate information about and gossipy denigration of other students. No topics are off limits. How does Ivester explain the tone his site has assumed?
"The site has changed over time," Ivester says. "The content is entirely user-generated, created by students, for students, in the manner they deem appropriate, without an administrator or a governing body censoring them."
So what do we do about it? How can the average student fight back against potentially defamatory postings on the site, which guarantees anonymity for all its posters?
Many students cite the First Amendment as the crux of the JuicyCampus problem. It seems impossible to remove information from the page or curb its use without also limiting our free speech.
I would like to argue, however, that employing the First Amendment for this purpose is a misunderstanding of the intent and license of freedom of speech. Instead, it is an abuse of the privilege of citizenship.
Ivester maintains that the site isn't being used improperly and that no court has found anything on JuicyCampus to be defamatory to date. JuicyCampus removes some posts, but at its sole discretion. Its administrators won't remove a post based solely on the fact that it is incorrect, and any user wishing to have a post removed against the will of the site editors needs a court order.
The original premise of JuicyCampus, site creator Matt Ivester told the Justice, is to be a place where students can post their opinions on their respective campus' day-to-day events-topics like quirky professors, great lectures or upcoming weekend events.
If you've been on the site, however, then you know that few of the posts, if any, follow these lines. The site has become a sounding board for students to post intimate information about and gossipy denigration of other students. No topics are off limits. How does Ivester explain the tone his site has assumed?
"The site has changed over time," Ivester says. "The content is entirely user-generated, created by students, for students, in the manner they deem appropriate, without an administrator or a governing body censoring them."
So what do we do about it? How can the average student fight back against potentially defamatory postings on the site, which guarantees anonymity for all its posters?
Many students cite the First Amendment as the crux of the JuicyCampus problem. It seems impossible to remove information from the page or curb its use without also limiting our free speech.
I would like to argue, however, that employing the First Amendment for this purpose is a misunderstanding of the intent and license of freedom of speech. Instead, it is an abuse of the privilege of citizenship.
Ivester maintains that the site isn't being used improperly and that no court has found anything on JuicyCampus to be defamatory to date. JuicyCampus removes some posts, but at its sole discretion. Its administrators won't remove a post based solely on the fact that it is incorrect, and any user wishing to have a post removed against the will of the site editors needs a court order.
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