February 12, 2008
Web Site Promising 'Juicy' Campus Gossip Faces Backlash
The Web site reads like the writing on the wall in a campus bathroom. Its motto is “Always Anonymous … Always Juicy.” And many students around the country are urging its leaders to take down the comments that have been scrawled there for all the world to see.
The site is called JuicyCampus, and it opened this summer. Some of the most viewed topics today are “Who is the sluttiest girl????,” “Hottest Cornell Sophomores,” and “Biggest Cornell Cokeheads?” Anonymous users of the site have posted their picks in each category and in many other, similar topics, and many of the students who are named on the site are not amused.
Pepperdine University’s student government passed a resolution calling on campus administrators to block the site from its campus network.
“We hoped to make a symbolic, public statement that Pepperdine does not support this sort of harmful, libelous gossip,” said Austin Maness, a student at Pepperdine and an officer in the student government, in an e-mail interview. “Furthermore, we had reason to be concerned for the immediate emotional health of a number of our fellow students.”
Critics of the site from Loyola Marymount University started a Facebook group called “BAN JuicyCampus!!!” which has attracted 854 members. An article this week in the Yale Daily News describes reaction to the site on that campus.
Officials from JuicyCampus did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. But the company posted a reply on its blog to what it described as the many requests it had received from people asking that their names be removed from the site:
“Two of the biggest problems we face when considering this issue are how strict to be and how exactly to implement some sort of restriction,” said the post on the blog. “But what if we decided to eliminate all posts with names? How would we implement it? Could we create a filter? But then people will just start writing Jo-h-nn_y instead of Johnny. Could we manually screen all posts? No, unfortunately not. … So, for now, we leave it to our users to decide how they want to use the site, and what they think is appropriate (subject to our Terms and Conditions).”
The site has set up specific channels for more than 50 college campuses, and apparently it plans to add more soon.
Should colleges block the site? Is this any different than the many sites that have popped up that let students rate their professors? —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Tuesday February 12, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: More Colleges Suffered Data Losses in 2007 Than in 2006, Study Finds
Next: Judge Scolds Oklahoma State Over Lack of Response in File-Sharing Case
Gossip is something we all do. There is some gossip that is useless to us as individuals and as a society as whole. That sort of gossip is what I call trash talk. It is malicious and intentionally hurts someone. However – there is another end of the gossip spectrum – gossip that is used to help spread social information. This happens whenever we are discussing events with others, when we are searching for the whole story to a morsel of information we know. When we gossip constructively, we can determine the whole truth instead of a piece of it. Gossip allows all people who know a bit of a story to combine the facts they personally know and this results in the big picture for all to share. Gossip is not always a bad thing. it’s an important thing when we use it constructively. There is a way to do what everybody does better – it’s called GossipReport.com. On that site, users can rate the gossip, the writer and can rally together and have nasty gossip removed if that’s what everyone voted on. With all the tools on the site, gossiping on GossipReport.com is safer than gossiping behind someones back!
— Elizabeth Feb 13, 09:22 AM #
The problem is that this forum can be very harmful and cause real damage to someone’s reputation and self-esteem. No one should have the right to put BS out there for the general public.
— Marcia Feb 13, 09:36 AM #
On GossipReport.com there are even tags where you can call the gossip BS (like you are saying Marcia) and call it out as being false. It’s important to let people be able to decide if what they’re reading is valid.
— Elizabeth Feb 13, 11:48 AM #
This site is crap. . . what they are doing is crap. . .anyone who posts something there is crap. . .and anyone who reads it isn’t much better. That said. . .
Calls for banning the site or having IT departments use their tools to block the site are out of place in an academic environment. If you don’t llike it, don’t go there. . . Except in the case of national security, censorship of any kind is wrong.
— Bill Feb 13, 11:56 AM #
The first lawsuit for libel that is filed against Juicy Website for spreading libelous information will likely bring the website down. Until then, wouldn’t freedom of expression prevail? Damage to self-esteem or “the right to put BS out there for the general public”, as Marcia states, is protected by the First Amendment unless they are libelous, and of course, the Supreme Court has affirmed that anyone can say outrageous things about a “public figure” and it is not libelous. Is, for example, the President of a University a public figure? Is a faculty member? Is the president of a Greek organization? How about a star football player on the college team or a cheerleader? Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes magnificent words, “Freedom for the thought that we hate” (and which is also the title of an important and superb new book on the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis) summarizes the situation nicely. Susan
— Susan Brynteson Feb 13, 12:14 PM #
This article omits the fact that a student was arrested at LMU just a few months ago for making a violent threat on the Juicy Campus website.
With that being said, censorship is never permissable in an academic environment.
— Rebecca Feb 13, 05:29 PM #
Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean is should be done. These type of websites are dangerous, not only because humans are cruel, but the internet itself seems to exacerbate cruelty. Like a gun that actually makes your trigger finger itchy.
— marci Feb 13, 07:09 PM #
— Elizabeth Feb 14, 12:24 PM #
Elizabeth,
No, the web site is not like the phone system. Phone calls are private. This is public. And, once pages are indexed, they can remain accessible to anyone long after the original site takes them down.
Employers now routinely search the web for the names of prospective employees. It was recently reported that 43% of recruiters do so when searching to fill senior executive positions. Anonymously posted and potentially libelous gossip can wreck careers and ruin lives. This site, and its posters, should seriously evaluate their legal liability. A big settlement can also ruin a poster’s life.
— Jim Feb 15, 12:40 PM #
I have been mentioned on juicy campus and the statement is libel. I can even guess who started this malicious rumor about me, but currently cant do anything about it. To be honest, I’m sitting in front of my computer with a box of tissues wondering how this will change the rest of my life. While my friends assure me no one cares about this site…I am great student, a well known student athlete and have applied to the best law schools in the country. Someone has intentionally defamed my character by explicitly stating I use cocaine, which is simply untrue. I’m left wondering what admissions officer (or employer) is going to admit some“cokehead” at a prestigious institution? I’ve sent an email to the site alerting them that I wish to be removed but don’t feel confident they’ll respond favorably. While they say libelous and defamatory statements are against their user agreement, it doesn’t seem like they monitor the site’s use at all. Am I ready to bring a libel suit against them? I’d love to, but I’m a college student with limited funds and limited time, and would be a small entity up against…a monster. I’m hoping the frustration and pain I’m feeling will somehow be alleviated by their response. I can only hope.
— posted Feb 16, 12:19 PM #
I think even though some of the material written in the site is offensive to some we must look within ourselves and seek out those individuals which are writing this material. I am very sorry to inform you all, yes even at Pepperdine those comments come from your environment, your social circle, the comments reflect the ideas and feelings of those in your community. Lets not forget our first amendment rights either. Don’t like it, don’t read it. What are you morally exceptional individuals doing at the site anyway? Austin Maness and Andy Canales should stay in school a bit longer and learn the importance of “Freedom of Speech”. we don’t have to like it just respect our rights.
— Freedom Feb 18, 03:27 PM #
Even freedom of speech has its limitations imposed by our courts. School students and their communities should call upon their state legislatures to ban such sites whose primary aim is libel, slander, and anonymous gossip. There are limitations on every one of our funamental rights…it is simply a matter of where we allow the federal government to draw them. So enough with the blanket… all free speech comments. You misunderstand our Constitution and system of government.
— Lawstudent 101 Feb 18, 05:50 PM #
Everything what anyone says should always be taken with a grain of salt.
— GentleTip.com Feb 19, 08:49 AM #
I agree with Freedom. We have freedom of speech, we also have the freedom to sue. That’s why your a law student right? If you make laws against Juicycampus.com you will start down a slippery slope of banning sites like Myspace.com or putting legal action against people who start facebook.com groups such as F*** the troops. Its freedom of speech. It’s all or nothing.
— Jeremiah Feb 19, 10:54 AM #
The first ammendment does not include the right to libelous statements.
— Law Feb 19, 02:59 PM #
— Elizabeth Feb 20, 07:49 AM #
“Posted,” if someone has done this to you, it is too serious to ignore. Perhaps a reputable lawyer would consider taking on your case pro bono or for a percentage of the outcome. As you note, this could impact your future and at the very least it would be good to have something on record to show that you fought the improper accusation. As others have pointed out, even if it is removed now, having been there during web indexes by search engines or information caching sites, the results could come up on search engines for some time. You might consider taking screen captures of the post as it currently exists in case the exact nature of the post comes into question later on.
— bta Mar 4, 11:13 AM #
I understand the argument for free speech. Nevertheless, libel is not protected. The vast majority of comments on the website are blatantly false. Additionally, we have seen, time and again, the internet challenge the wisdom of pre-existing legal statues.
Just a snapshot of some recent posts:
“Which girls at Tulane have had abortions?”
“biggest whore in each dorm”
“You are a terrible person. You are the world´s largest c***, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Anne Coulter´s c*** walking on to this campus was nothing compared to your impressively shameless a**h*** at Xavier this evening. I hope you get AIDS, and rickrolled. You are a disgrace to the Tulane community. Eat s***.”
At the very least, administrators should do all that is in their power to limit its influence on campus.
— Kevin Mar 4, 08:11 PM #
— Elizabeth Mar 10, 08:43 AM #
Freedom of speech sweetheart….
— Brittany Mar 12, 08:43 PM #
Is it just me, or does Elizabeth sound like she’s someone from that website Gossip report trying to promote the competetion? Hmmm? How many times can you get the URL into your post? That’s pretty much spam.
The thing is: campuses regularly ban sites. We have filtering software on our campus than bans “questionable” websites, like pornography. I have, sometimes, been forbidden from going to regular websites—once a Gary Snyder (the poet) website was banned because the person posting his “zen” poetry called it porn, which it is NOT. Once, while doing research on blackface for an Uncle Tom’s Cabin presentation, I found a Marilyn Manson website that was banned while I was on campus. When I got home, I found nothing all that objectionable to me on the site. It was about what Manson was doing, not glorfiying but reporting. So, yes, campuses regularly ban “objectionable” content on the web.
Freedom of speech is always limited. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. I think this Juicy site sounds like it is hurting people, and I don’t actually object to it being banned on campuses. The Freedom of speech idea, as far as my limited understanding, is based on the government banning certain unpopular political speech. That is not what this is. We regularly decide that certain speech is not legal. Hate speech, et al. THIS sounds very much like hate speech of a sort to me.
I hope it doesn’t come to my university.
— Kim Mar 14, 07:10 PM #
This site, as objectionable as it is, is doing nothing more than acting as a community bulletin board. Nothing would prevent these individuals using the site from posting the same garbage using yellow 8.5×11 paper in the campus mail room or student center after hours. I’m not all that concerned with the website or the Duke graduate who came up with the stupid idea. My real concern is with the individuals who feel it necessary to make use of such sites in the first place, and who feel the impression of anonymity the site provides will shield them from the criticism of their respective community.
I’d recommend students affected by such posts seek legal counsel. At a minimum, they’d probably be able to discover the identity of the posters by subpoena with the website itself (to obtain the poster’s IP address) and the poster’s ISP, likely the university or college (to obtain the actual identity of the poster). Although I recognize that legal services are typically not free, I doubt it would be difficult for at least some to find an attorney willing to distinguish themselves by attacking such an unfortunately newsworthy site. Legal clinics at the individual’s university (if they have a law school) would likely also be interested in pursuing such a case.
Regardless of the legal recourses available, obtaining the identity of the poster(s) might be an end unto itself, since it would subject those posting to the scrutiny of their own communities. And, I doubt most of those named would want to put at issue facts such as their chastity in an open court proceeding. Once it becomes public knowledge that posters are not guaranteed anonymity, the website’s popularity will likely suffer as well.
And for anyone who thinks the posters should be free to make such statements anonymously, and argue the First Amendment guarantees them a right to do so, I suggest you actually read the First Amendment. I don’t read anything in there about being able to say whatever I want free from the criticism of my fellow citizens. The First Amendment, in my opinion, has the primary purpose of guaranteeing a lively public discourse, free from laws that prohibit such speech. It does not guarantee to individuals a right to make anonymous, one-sided attacks because they are too ashamed to voice their opinions in an open forum.
— Michael Mar 17, 04:02 PM #
I have a daughter who has been victimized by “Juicy”. Being a member of “the 60’s” generation, and an avid observer of every generation since, I believe that the creation, the acceptance and the increased participation with a site demonstrating such self-hatred brings the youth of this country to a new low. I recognize that many/most students probably don’t endorse this garbage, but a quick look at this site reveals that: a. there are an awful lot of people participating on it; b. the level of pain that they are willing to inflict is unprecedented; c. they feel completely comfortable in their cowardice by outdoing each other with total disregard for the morality and consequences of their actions only with complete anonymity. Whatever happens to this site, and its founders down the road, the damage has already been done – those who add to this site’s filth along with those who defend it (under the ridiculous claim of free speech – please, we fought against real violations of 1st amendment rights 40 years ago) have created an embarrassment for the rest of your generation that can never be undone.
Someday the victim of this exercise of “free speech” may be your son or your daughter or someone else that you care about. This is not only a legal issue – it is a moral and ethical issue that tests our concept of what is simply right and wrong. It is a giant test of the image that this generation wants to put forth for their own children in years to come – currently they are failing miserably.
— Doug Mar 17, 11:31 PM #
This site is obviously an embarrassment to everyone who posts on it, although I highly doubt they have realized it yet, especially under the veil of anonymity.
I think this is not so different than many other times in our history when people have used free speech to justify the language of hate. The limits of free speech obey the harms principle – the courts have always taken the position to restricted it when its presence puts others at direct risk (i.e. you can’t yell fire in a building if there is no fire).
However, more often than not, the best way to fight hate speech has been to let it become as unrestricted as possible. Perhaps the best example of this was the decision by the Supreme Court to let the KKK march in Skokie, IL.
Quite frankly, these are dumb kids that are glued to this site. There is attraction around the site because of its newness, but for the intelligent youth of America, this will be a very short-lived fad. Those who still participate after the fad will be labeled in the same nasty way that their comments currently lace their targets.
— Brian Mar 18, 01:34 AM #
Kim @ #19 is absolutely right: “Elizabeth” is clearly someone promoting the other website and “her” comments should be removed by the moderators (or at least ignored). Thanks, Kim, for figuring that out.
About issues of free speech: campus communities are not like the general public and thus free speech matters should be and have been treated differently. There is a recognition that students in these communities are not yet adults and that administrators and faculty have a responsibility to protect students from harmful discourse like hate speech. And make no mistake, many if not most of the postings on juicy qualify as hate speech — directly partly at ethnic and racial groups (some of the most vicious comments are directed at Jews on my campus), but much of it at young women. And as Kim points out, there are already practices in place on many campuses that screen out certain websites. My sympathies go out to those parents and students who are facing the deeply distressing consequences of this site.
— Pandora Mar 20, 04:46 PM #
Sorry: Kim’s comment is @#21. The one @#19 is the clearest evidence that “Elizabeth” is about 23 and stuck in a cubicle in a soul-killing job. I’m almost feeling a little sorry for “her.”
— Pandora Mar 20, 05:04 PM #