While searching for a story that involved a libel issue, I ran into a bunch of articles about the website Juicy Campus. For anyone that is not familiar with the recently shut down website, Juicy Campus is a place to anonymously post gossip. The things people would write were truly atrocious and most of the time false. It is almost the reality TV of the Internet, just plain trashy. In one article, a student assembly at a small private high school held a meeting to discuss libel and possible actions they could take against the website. The problem is, from a legal standpoint there is not anything you can do about the cruel web posts. Websites, unlike other types of mass media, have special protection, which is why the thousands of libelous comments made on Juicy Campus could not be stopped. Also, you can’t sue the site, but you can sue the person making the libelous statement…but since it’s anonymous, there is no way of proving who said what.
The website supports malicious gossip by asking students to rant about the hottest freshman, the biggest drug users, and best and worst Greek houses. The creator and the website have been the subject of much legal discussion and speculation over First Amendment issues. Some students who had been victims of the gossip also tried to sue the creator.
To me, Juicy Campus meets all the criteria we talked about in class regarding how to prove libel. The comments on the website clearly identify others by name and also use an extreme amount of racial slurs. The comments harm people’s reputations and definitely result in harm to those subject of ridicule. Juicy Campus really makes me think about online privacy and Internet censorship.
The issue of anonymous postings on the internet led me to find this article. The article talks about how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily. This is what I have an issue with. I believe that with all the harm that sites like Juicy Campus have caused people, something needs to be done. I think there needs to be a way to censor the Internet so that it can be responsible for libel just like other types of media.
Internet censorship? Pretty tough, Tina. I never really thought about the double-standard between print publications and online. If someone writes an anonymous letter-to-the-editor to a newspaper that has libel, the paper is responsible. Why not the same for web sites?
ReplyDeleteI think the benefits of having a largely uncensored internet outweigh the harm. In the article, the professor argued that the best way to stop sites like that is not to go to them because advertisers won't advertise on unvisited sites. There are a lot of horrible things on the internet that you just have to avoid. I would hate for someone to google my name and have a bunch of derogatory words follow but many public figures suffer from that and lead happy lives. Ignore the bullies (don't feed the trolls) I say.
ReplyDeleteI think the website should be responsible for anything said on their website, much like letters to the editors in newspapers. The website could censor the statements made, they just choose not to do it.
ReplyDeleteIf they created a gossip website, I'm not surprised they don't censor it. But I don't think there should be a law forcing websites to censor comments or else they will face penalties--because that's censoring the internet.
ReplyDelete