Juicy college: discuss

[drakonuz]

Public safety and free speech

As one who spent a lot of time on the receiving end of this, I cannot help but feel that malice is not covered under the First Amendment, any more that the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater is. And that's where I suspect it will stop. Eventually some court will decree that malice and viciousness isn't part of free speech. I'll even put money on it.

The oft-used (and abused) simile of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a matter of public saftey, nothing more. There are two main times/reasons speech can be restricted based on current interpretations of the constitution.
1) What the Supreme Court has termed "fighting words". Words that have no constructive/productive use in society. The other common description of this category is 'hate speech' EDIT: all else is addressed through libel and slander provisions.
2) When there is imminent danger to the public or an individual. Imminent means there is no possible way for law enforcement to react in time. This category is where the "fire" example falls - the likelihood of a stampede resulting in injury is high and there would be no time for intervention. Another example would be of an orator inciting a riot or other illegal act that would endanger the public or an individual (such as arming people and calling for the assassination of the President)

Clearly, the example of a website that allows people to express truth and opinion does not directly infringe upon either of these two categories. If you restrict what people write online it is clear violation of the constitution, but more than that it creates ample opportunity for more government intervention in your written and spoken works as well as your thoughts.

Can you say BIG BROTHER?? ... I sure hope not

(if someone already covered this, I'm sorry - I didn't read the entire board)

 

[drakonuz]

The Lori Drew case is on a thread down the way-- a 49 year old woman stalked a very young teen, megan meier, who had quarrelled with her daughter. She created a false identity on myspace, pretended to be a boy who liked Megan, and "josh" eventually told Megan that she was horrible and hateful.

Megan hung herself.

There are no laws in Missouri, evidently, which cover a case of cyber-stalking. The woman has been in danger of being lynched and the state is desperate to find something they can officially charge her with-- to prevent mob violence.

It's understandable to make decisions about your own fund of energy, we all have to do it, but don't make your own energy level a moral bellwether, huh? In the juicy case, the rumors can be enough to destroy a young person's career before it's gotten started. Even more than that-- the unbridled expressions of homophobia, misogyny, bigotry are very damaging to the fabric of our society. They make other people think that it's okay to think like that and say things like that. The best way to fight that tendency is to get in there and express to opposing view.

This person was clearly a pathetic waste of human flesh with parents that were neither involved nor supportive of her. People have been insulting others, fighting others, relating with others for millenia... technology does nothing more than allow them to do it without being face to face.

There is nothing that forced that girl to open her MySpace messages, there is nothing that forced her to continue conversing with "josh", and while I can't say there is nothing wrong with what the old lady did . . . it's hardly illegal. Hanging yourself over a bunch of 1's and 0's is ludacris, and that she had no friends or family that cared enough to a) know something was going on and b) find out, explains her own failures (and hanging herself) - not the "cyberbullying".

When you were (or are) in high school and some boy/girl you were interested in said something mean, did you run off to the nearest bridge and jump? Clearly not, because you're still here reading this... how is the current situation any different? There are some people that DO do that - - - they just don't make the news because it isn't recorded online.

Shit happens, learn to deal with it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The oft-used (and abused) simile of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a matter of public saftey, nothing more. There are two main times/reasons speech can be restricted based on current interpretations of the constitution.
1) What the Supreme Court has termed "fighting words". Words that have no constructive/productive use in society. The other common description of this category is 'hate speech' EDIT: all else is addressed through libel and slander provisions.
2) When there is imminent danger to the public or an individual. Imminent means there is no possible way for law enforcement to react in time. This category is where the "fire" example falls - the likelihood of a stampede resulting in injury is high and there would be no time for intervention. Another example would be of an orator inciting a riot or other illegal act that would endanger the public or an individual (such as arming people and calling for the assassination of the President)

Clearly, the example of a website that allows people to express truth and opinion does not directly infringe upon either of these two categories. If you restrict what people write online it is clear violation of the constitution, but more than that it creates ample opportunity for more government intervention in your written and spoken works as well as your thoughts.

Can you say BIG BROTHER?? ... I sure hope not

(if someone already covered this, I'm sorry - I didn't read the entire board)

Umm... slander and libel and hate speech are exactly what this site is encouraging. Slander, by definition, excludes truth. Libel is often defended as "opinion." hate speech is hate speech.

Can you say "I DIDN'T READ THE THREAD?" oh wait a minute-- you did say that.

 

[drakonuz]

You clearly didn't read my post. I said that the Supreme Court has defined "fighting words" - and that people commonly call it 'hate speech'. I did not say that they were identical.

You are also wrong that the website is promoting hate speech. Just because the speech is hurtful or written by someone hating another person does not make it 'hate speech'. Definitions are key (especially when talking about legal issues). Additionally, to prove a case of slander or libel you must be able to show that the information printed/spoken was knowingly done with malicious intent. Many of the posts on this website (admittedly, I am guessing here - as a college student studying government and law, I have no desire to view the website) are probably rumor and heresay in which there is no proof that the person wrote the information with intent to injure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You clearly didn't read my post. I said that the Supreme Court has defined "fighting words" - and that people commonly call it 'hate speech'. I did not say that they were identical.

You are also wrong that the website is promoting hate speech. Just because the speech is hurtful or written by someone hating another person does not make it 'hate speech'. Definitions are key (especially when talking about legal issues). Additionally, to prove a case of slander or libel you must be able to show that the information printed/spoken was knowingly done with malicious intent. Many of the posts on this website (admittedly, I am guessing here - as a college student studying government and law, I have no desire to view the website) are probably rumor and heresay in which there is no proof that the person wrote the information with intent to injure.

As a college student studying law, you surely know better than to make opinions based on unverified guesses. i submit that you can indeed visit the site safely. you are, after all, a law student. Lawyers sometimes visit crime scenes, don't they? Call it a field trip for research.

Anti-semitic statements are not probably rumor and heresay. Homophobic statements are hate speech. Misogyny is harmful to fully one half of the world's population. These things are not opinions about one particular person, they address large groups of people. When they are presented in the guise of an opinion about one person, they are used to harm one person as a representative of the many.

The site promotes hate speech because it is set up in a way that allows hate speech to flourish unchecked. Passive promotion it may be, but just ask manu and laurel about their own culpabilities in regards to prohibited material posted on the site which they own and operate.

 

[drakonuz]

I never speculated as to the "safety" of visiting the sight, I simply stated that I have no desire.

Neither broad anti-simitic statements nor those discussing sexuality are illegal, nor should they be. Part of the survival of a democracy is in the discussion of social rights, responsibilities, and norms. Politics is not reserved for discussion about the Republican and Democratic parties or even such a limited scope as elected officials.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I never speculated as to the "safety" of visiting the sight, I simply stated that I have no desire.

Neither broad anti-simitic statements nor those discussing sexuality are illegal, nor should they be. Part of the survival of a democracy is in the discussion of social rights, responsibilities, and norms. Politics is not reserved for discussion about the Republican and Democratic parties or even such a limited scope as elected officials.

That's a pretty good evasion of my points.

There are times when broad statements are illegal-- the situations that I pointed out, and which are germane to this case. These broad statements are being applied to individuals.

...as a college student studying government and law, I have no desire to view the website)

Now I'm curious- in what way is your major germane to your reluctance to look at the website?

 

[drakonuz]

My area of study is relevant to the discussion - nothing more. For as much as you seem to enjoy writing, I would think that you should be well versed in theories of communication and the need to establish credibility regarding the subject on which one intends to be included.

It seems to me that you keep trying to change the conversation to suit your needs - circularly I might add. Your comments about anti-simitic and homophobic statements was intended to draw the conversation from the individual to the whole - - - and your response did quite the opposite. Choose your grounds for discussion before you confuse everyone.

Anti-simitic and homophobic statements directed at an individual are still not illegal (as far as I am aware, in the U.S.). Statements about conditions which a person has not chosen (i.e. race and gender) can be, but are not always. So, either way you change your argument, it is still wrong.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My area of study is relevant to the discussion - nothing more. For as much as you seem to enjoy writing, I would think that you should be well versed in theories of communication and the need to establish credibility regarding the subject on which one intends to be included.

the way you worded it implies more. i do enjoy writing, and I've had about a hundred years of experience in making my meanings clear (or at least attempting to,) and deciphering meanings from other people's words. Your credibility here depends on the skill in which you advance your argument, and your student status is minimal cred. Your statement that you are only guessing since you would not go to the site to judge for yourself makes your judgements useless. That ought to be obvious.

It seems to me that you keep trying to change the conversation to suit your needs - circularly I might add. Your comments about anti-simitic and homophobic statements was intended to draw the conversation from the individual to the whole - - - and your response did quite the opposite. Choose your grounds for discussion before you confuse everyone.

Uh, no. I think I said pretty clearly what I meant to say. "Broad statements about a group of people can be applied to an individual. This serves to attack the group in the person of one individual. (it also damns the individual by means of the group, mea culpa for not adding that)

(semitic, by the way, not simitic)

Anti-simitic and homophobic statements directed at an individual are still not illegal (as far as I am aware, in the U.S.). Statements about conditions which a person has not chosen (i.e. race and gender) can be, but are not always. So, either way you change your argument, it is still wrong.

okay, now you imply that a person's religion is a matter of choice and can be easily changed if one wishes to avoid confrontation. This is a side issue for sure, but it tells me a lot about whom I am speaking with. It intimates to me that you are not worth arguing with, actually.

Are you really a college student? If you are, when do your ethics classes begin?

 

[drakonuz]

(semitic, by the way, not simitic)

Correct - please excuse my unfortunate spelling error...

okay, now you imply that a person's religion is a matter of choice and can be easily changed if one wishes to avoid confrontation. This is a side issue for sure, but it tells me a lot about whom I am speaking with. It intimates to me that you are not worth arguing with, actually.

Are you really a college student? If you are, when do your ethics classes begin?

I thought this was a discussion about the legality (and free speech aspects) of the website, not a discussion of personal bias. I have never, so far, suggested that I condone this behavior; however, the Supreme Court has decided that religion (and you missed the inference that sexual preference is a choice) is a chosen behavior. Even the California Supreme Court in its ruling this week on gay marriage did not challenge that homosexuality is a choice - it simply said that the separate but equal status of domestic partnerships and marriages is illegal.

I beg to differ with respect to my student status and credibility. Especially in areas of study that are constantly changing, students are often more up-to-date on current events, have greater understanding of theory (knowledge decays), and are immersed in an environment which fosters critical thinking and evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Good students are.

Your status has not yet been determined from your posts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Correct - please excuse my unfortunate spelling error...



I thought this was a discussion about the legality (and free speech aspects) of the website, not a discussion of personal bias. I have never, so far, suggested that I condone this behavior; however, the Supreme Court has decided that religion (and you missed the inference that sexual preference is a choice) is a chosen behavior. Even the California Supreme Court in its ruling this week on gay marriage did not challenge that homosexuality is a choice - it simply said that the separate but equal status of domestic partnerships and marriages is illegal.

I beg to differ with respect to my student status and credibility. Especially in areas of study that are constantly changing, students are often more up-to-date on current events, have greater understanding of theory (knowledge decays), and are immersed in an environment which fosters critical thinking and evaluation.

The discussion began with the assumption that New Jersey had some basis for its investigation-- ergo, the legality of the speech wasn't so much the primary thrust of the conversation. Most of the discussion has been about the nature of interweb society, and how best to deal with the current realities thereof. I fully admit to having very strong opinions on how to bring about change in an anarchic situation-- and a very strong desire to see the web remain an anarchy.

My dear, knowledge does not decay in a mind that is actively using said knowledge. I stress actively, of course! Critical thinking and evaluation are two of the most important skills in life. You have neglected your evaluation process right here, right now-- you did not evaluate this conversation and you have expressed a disinclination to evaluate the particulars of this case. You cannot apply critical thoughts to a factual vacuum.

I shall not develop your comments re: lifestyle choices, as they have nothing to do with the juicy issue. You can find other threads for that topic.

 

[drakonuz]

Once again, I think you are wrong in your statements. Let me clarify...
The _thread_ started with a discussion about the nature of the Juicy College website, the _discussion_ (that you and I engaged in) was, in fact, based on freedom of speech while that was the issue I addressed in my response above to voluptuary_manque. My response was intended to demonstrate that "malice" should not be (and is not currently) illegal and provide some basic information about what freedom of speech means in the U.S.

I am not your dear, thank you. You are absolutely correct that knowledge used regularly doesn't decay; however, a large portion of what is learned in college does - especially theory.

Again, you are wrong about what is relevant, and what isn't. Lifestyle choice (while itself not up for discussion... yet) is directly relevant to the Juicy College issue because it is one of the original points of interest ("Gay students have been outted......others accused of racism." quoted). And, there is little development necessary since I simply sought to suggest you missed part of the conversation through improper reading and evaluation of the message.

 

[drakonuz]

Good students are.

Your status has not yet been determined from your posts.

Good point, but hardly productive.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As one who spent a lot of time on the receiving end of this, I cannot help but feel that malice is not covered under the First Amendment, any more that the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater is. And that's where I suspect it will stop. Eventually some court will decree that malice and viciousness isn't part of free speech. I'll even put money on it.

They probably already have with the various hate speech laws that have been enacted around the country.

I feel strongly, that the guy who runs the site will have his nuts handed to him on a plater when he is eventually charged as an accessory to slander and hate crimes in some Federal Court.

As for being truly anonymous when you post to a website, that's a load of bullshit...there is always the IP address that is attached to every packet of data the server accepts. All servers store that information for a period of time if not permanently in some log file. So unless the server that is being used is his own personal server, not some rented server, he could purge the logs. But if it's a rented server, those logs will be on some disk spaced owned by the renter as they would want to know who is accessing their hardware.

 

[jomar]

I feel strongly, that the guy who runs the site will have his nuts handed to him on a plater when he is eventually charged as an accessory to slander and hate crimes in come Federal Court.

I very much doubt that. I haven't read them, but I'm sure this, among a host of other things, is covered in the terms of use when one registers. A beginning lawyer writing it up would be sure to have the user indemnify and hold harmless the owner/operators. And the owner/operator would be a fool not to have that clause.


Having said that, this may lead to a fine and the site being shut down (from the article):

"JuicyCampus may be violating the state's Consumer Fraud Act by suggesting that it doesn't allow offensive material but providing no enforcement of that rule — and no way for users to report or dispute the material, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram said Tuesday."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I very much doubt that. I haven't read them, but I'm sure this, among a host of other things, is covered in the terms of use when one registers. A beginning lawyer writing it up would be sure to have the user indemnify and hold harmless the owner/operators. And the owner/operator would be a fool not to have that clause.

Which brings me right back to the issue of internet activism.
I make no specific suggestions, just sayin'.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Law and interpretation of the Constitution also change over time. While everyone is piously proclaiming their devotion to free speech, vulnerable people are (occasionally, only occasionally, I hope) dying from those words that "never hurt me". I am not advocating anything. I rarely do but I observe constantly. For good or for ill, I stand by my prediction. The day will come when some judge rules that vicious and malicious speech is not protected under the First Amendment. Slander is already illegal unless one has deliberately put oneself in the public eye, like politicians and celebraties. Malice is next. Watch for it.

 

[jomar]

Which brings me right back to the issue of internet activism.
I make no specific suggestions, just sayin'.

Yeah. I'm not condoning his site by any means, I think it encourages the worst in people. But even a boilerplate terms of agreement would cover his butt legally. But the slant of the investigation fall on the site's not policing negative comments as it apparently said it would. I hope they nail him.

Law and interpretation of the Constitution also change over time. ... The day will come when some judge rules that vicious and malicious speech is not protected under the First Amendment. Slander is already illegal unless one has deliberately put oneself in the public eye, like politicians and celebraties. Malice is next. Watch for it.

I can't define it, but i know it when I see it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah. I'm not condoning his site by any means, I think it encourages the worst in people. But even a boilerplate terms of agreement would cover his butt legally. But the slant of the investigation fall on the site's not policing negative comments as it apparently said it would. I hope they nail him.

I can't define it, but i know it when I see it.

One wonders if he would police egregiously positive comments any better? *whistles*

 

[voluptuary_manque]

One wonders if he would police egregiously positive comments any better? *whistles*

Interesting point. Can flattery cause harm? How about brown-nosing? Smarminess? These are deep questions, ya know?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting point. Can flattery cause harm? How about brown-nosing? Smarminess? These are deep questions, ya know?

I wonder, more to the point, how these malicious threads would survive if they were steadily filled with happy bunny stories by a large number of newly-registered members-- making it impossible for the regulars to find the responding posts in the middle of the flood of saccharine sweetness. These posts can not be spam, you understand...

 

[jomar]

One wonders if he would police egregiously positive comments any better? *whistles*

But he never promised to police them, you see. But given his track record I could see him being indicted in a most egregious manner.

 

[jomar]

I wonder, more to the point, how these malicious threads would survive if they were steadily filled with happy bunny stories by a large number of newly-registered members-- making it impossible for the regulars to find the responding posts in the middle of the flood of saccharine sweetness. These posts can not be spam, you understand...

Scouries should be a consultant on this.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Scouries should be a consultant on this.

Ooh, good one! It would be such a use of his talents for, you know-- kindness and empathy, self-pity and neediness. And he could be part of a group!