First Amendment rights pushed to the extreme at juicycampus.com. Internet defamation rampant on the college web.
College Web site posts sex gossip, hate, rumor - CNN.com
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."
But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a Web site when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard. In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs. JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises. The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."
Technorati Tags: first amendment, juicy campus, juicycampus, defamation, libel, slander, internet
The best way to hurt them is to take away their income. Email every advertiser and Google Ads and let them know your displeasure.
Posted by: Mary | February 19, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Listen, people will take it for what it's worth - a site that may possibly be full of lies because it is "gossip". So, going onto the site, people should take just precaution to think that libel or slander could be going on, but I don't really think there is anything else wrong with it. Sometimes people need to be dealt with anonymously otherwise how else would you fight against people that are popular and/or have all the power. The american government does it to us with psi-ops, we should have the right to knock the people in control down a notch - otherwise, if no free speech even if it is not good news means that you can be locked in a suitcase and thrown in a lake without being able to scream for help.
Posted by: Magic Johnson | February 19, 2008 at 02:09 AM
The first amendment protects the right of private citizens to say whatever they want to, except when it is to the detriment of society. I'm sorry, does defaming a person's name sound like it should be protected. They are destroying these people's names. What the bloody hell are you thinking? Slander is not protecting, how the hell are you expected to allow the same thing on the internet. Close down the site. By providing users the ability to do this, and not removing the "illegal" content like any other site would anything else, such as the posting of product keys, the site has lost its right to "protection." Hell, the owners who operate and oversee the site should be arrested for facilitating the use of the website. Clearly a violation of the victims right to privacy. Isn't that also a violation of the first amendment. Let's see. What rights should we protect, the ones that are in place to protect the rights of US citizens, or the ones that are used to defame them. Should be a textbook example of miss use of the first amendment, like some idiot crying fire in the dark theater, or some cult sacrificing a goat. Pathetic.
Posted by: Stark | February 18, 2008 at 09:56 PM