 "Photo:")
 "Photo:")
"I can't even put this into words. I've been thinking about this all day and it's totally ruined my day," he said Monday, when he found out. "Someone felt the need to write something explicitly about me - nothing that was mentioned even happened at all."
JuicyCampus.com, a gossip Web site offering complete anonymity to its users, was launched in October and has recently added Ohio State to the list of campuses it "serves." However, not everyone is happy with this new presence on campus and questions have been raised about the ethical and legal implications of the site.
Patton, a sophomore in international business administration, said he was shocked a site of this nature exists.
"They can say anything and there are no consequences. I can't even delete it," he said. "They're trying to key into this market of students and it's sick... They're trying to exploit us."
The Web site might be unethical, but it is not illegal.
Associate professor Edward Lee, an expert in Internet law at OSU's Moritz College of Law, said under the constitution, Web sites publishing third-party content are not liable for what is written.
A Jan. 28 press release from JuicyCampus seemed to promote the mean-spirited nature of the site: "JuicyCampus.com brings the most scandalous, salacious and entertaining stories from the students themselves, and allows fellow college goers to read, post and comment."
JuicyCampus also emphasized the anonymity it provides for its users.
"Posting and commenting on the latest sorority scandals, classroom mishaps and other general mayhem... It allows its users to get the 'word' out without leaking the source - all posts are anonymous."
Patton finds the anonymity of the site troublesome.
"Actual students have a place where they can anonymously and freely commit mass libel. Where is this going to end?" he said, adding site administrators should be responsible for monitoring what people write.
In fact, the site's terms and conditions state users agree not to "Upload ... content that: (1) is ... defamatory, obscene, libelous, or invasive of another's privacy." It also says if a user violates these terms, JuicyCampus may, "at its sole discretion, terminate your password, account ... or ability to use the Site, and remove any content you posted to the Site."
It seems JuicyCampus is using its discretion sparingly because the site is littered with defamatory, obscene and libelous postings that range from labeling specific women "whores" and posting details about their promiscuous habits and STDs, to a discussion about "the stuck up bitches," in a certain sorority.
Content removal was also a problem for Patton who said he tried to call an administrator but no contact numbers were provided on the Web site.
JuicyCampus does address content removal in its FAQ section: "How do I remove a comment I posted?" is the question. Answer: "You can't. Once it's out there. It's out there. So be careful what you say."
JuicyCampus also provides justification for untrue comments on the site.
"First, you might want to consider whether the comment states a fact or an opinion. Facts can be untrue. Opinions can be stupid, or ignorant, or mean spirited, but they can't be untrue. And we believe everyone is entitled to their opinion," it said in the FAQ section.
If a comment is stated as a fact and not an opinion, JuicyCampus also asks users to consider whether the "fact" is meant to be taken in the context of a joke. "If the 'fact' is that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse, that's obviously meant to be a joke," it said. "Parody is protected by the First Amendment."
Equally problematic is the statement indicating that, in the case of a violation of the user agreement, the site will terminate a user's password, account or ability to use the site. It is unclear how this would be enforced since users do not have accounts or passwords.
Ethically, it could be argued JuicyCampus stands on shaky ground. Legally, however, the site is protected under the constitution.
"The Communications Decency Act provides a safe harbor or immunity for Web sites that are merely publishing the content posted by third parties," Lee said. "As long as they're not encouraging people to break the law, they're still safe under the law."
Even if it is facilitated by a third party, anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment.
"In our democracy we want to preserve some space for uninhibited discourse and to do this we must preserve anonymity," Lee said.
Patton felt wronged to have been personally and maliciously named in a post that has received more than 1,800 views, but it appears there is not much he can do about it.
"I've tried to think of ways to make it stop... but I don't know," he said. "The only way we can really make sure it doesn't succeed is if people don't use it."
Briony Clare can be reached at clare.6@osu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!