March 2, 2008

What Exactly Did The JuicyCampus Founder Think Would Happen?

Michael Arrington

39 comments »

I’m not sure what JuicyCampus founder Matt Ivester expected when he launched a gossip site for college students, but apparently things are getting out of hand. People, who can post anonymously, are being “mean.” And despite some legal protections, Ivester might be getting a little nervous about defamation and libel lawsuits.

In a blog post on Friday, he says “Some of the things that have been posted have been mean-spirited, and we have received emails from people claiming to have been defamed on the site,” and adds “We want you to make JuicyCampus Juicy, not hateful.”

He’s also quick to point out that he’s not liable for anything said on the site: “Please be advised that Juicy Campus is not the author of the posts that appear on the site. Rather, Juicy Campus is the provider of an interactive computer service. As such, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 230, Juicy Campus is immune from liability arising from content posted by users.”

As users, posting anonymously, accuse others of being child molesters and debate who is the sluttiest girl in school, page views will likely rise. But Matt will be dealing with a nearly constant barrage of legal threats from quite-rightly angry students and parents. Appeals to simply be nice won’t do anything to stop it. And those legal protections may not be as bullet proof as he thinks. The whole thing may fall apart when the daughter of the wrong politician gets attacked.

Philip Kaplan dealt with almost exactly the same issues with FuckedCompany back in 2000-2001. Matt, you may want to give him a call, and ask for a referral to a good attorney.

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. JosefVirek

    dumbest. site. ever.

  2. allen stern

    I realized how popular this site is/was when I first posted about it and have received just mad Google hits from the post:
    http://www.centernetworks.com/company/juicy-campus

    I’m curious as what people think about JC vs. say GGW…

  3. No Surprise

    Obviously the site is wreckless, irresponsible, and poorly planned. This said, the content strategy is spot on in terms of demand for trashy gossip. Perhaps Juicy Campus should remove the anonymous posting… that would be interesting! :-)

  4. lawrence

    the site is basically a Craigslists’ rants and raves section - but for colleges

    the anonymous aspect adds a real sense of mystique too - knowing it could be someone in one of your classes, lol

    defending all those lawsuits will definitley cost the site.
    i’m not sure how large they are to sustain that.

    it’s a good concept, but not that good - it really did pickup a lot of media attention when it was covered greatly, weeks back

  5. User447

    “And those legal protections may not be as bullet proof as he thinks. ”
    As a lawyer why don’t you go ahead and do the whole 360 with the full blown legal opinion?

  6. Everett

    They should make it a Facebook App! ;)

  7. Dave

    Michael, what evidence do you have of their potential legal weakness?

    The following primer on Section 230 lays out pretty clearly that except for cases where a site forces a user to take illegal action, the defense is fairly strong and has been affirmed by many courts.

    http://www.citmedialaw.org/blo.....ns-decency

  8. User447

    @Dave, I was wondering… If Mike gives a legal opinion as to why it isn’t bulletproof, and somebody uses that as a basis for a lawsuit against the website, would he be liable?
    On the other hand if he doesn’t have a solid opinion, then why generalize publicly?

  9. Mystery CEO

    Aren’t there sites that allow women to put up reviews of guys they’ve been on dates with, etc… I remember seeing this on the news and the founder of that site was getting sued left and right as well…

    And how is this really any different from ANY social network where you can say anything you want about anyone - technically, they would all be liable to the same legal weaknesses as this site, right?

    MysteryCEO

  10. BillyBob

    The success of this site should show people that we’ve once again returned to an environment where you’re more likely to be successful creating standalone stuff, as opposed to Facebook apps. There have been lots of Facebook apps that have done this gossip sort of thing - notice we don’t hear much about any of them!

  11. Thomas Grunigsten

    @BillyBob, facebook ‘apps’ dont rlly allow for anonymous postings do they?
    that’s what i thought.

    fb apps are more suited to services that promote ‘positive’ behavior

  12. Megan

    This reminds me a lot of “Mean Kids”, which was supposedly ‘purposeful anarchy’ (ya right) for the purposes of ‘art and criticism’. That site ended with somebody getting death threats.

    There will always be people willing to push the envelope, and if you give them space to do it, they’ll keep doing it until things have gone way WAY too far, and soon they’ve ruined what started out as a half-decent idea.

  13. Gfox

    i don’t think the legal protection Juicy Campus is expecting has been decided in a court of law. i believe they can be libel if they ‘encourage’ others to break the law and defame other students. i think it’s very possible to argue the premise of the website is exactly that. What’s juicy if not secret? What’s secret that is not wrong? gossip. So, encouraging people to publicly proclaim secrets is a recipe for defamation and slander.

  14. Alaska Miller

    it’s like truemors, but dumber. yay!

  15. Thomas Grunigsten

    one difference Alaska, user traction.

  16. Caligula

    One more difference, Alaska: mindless buzzwords.

  17. Steel

    It appears the social networking fiasco in general will soon implode. People share far too much personal information that will someday bite them i their ass and now this site enables people to wage personal wars on people. SN may be fun until people’s lives are adversely effected. The proverbial sh*t hitting the fan is just around the corner.

  18. David

    Gfox, the legal protection has been decided in a court of law:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeran_v._AOL
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

    There really needs to be intent to defame or conspiracy to defame for Juicy Campus to lose their Section 230 protection.

  19. Robert Seidman

    How about non-anonymous meaness?

    Where’s the best place to go to rag on almost completely derivative TC sites that are sorely lacking in any actual good analysis/analysts or perspective but scrape by via making it up in volume? I’m willing to call out the bad analysts by name specifically and say why I feel as I do.

    I know I could just use my own blog, but is there a central place for non anomymous truthful mean spirtedness? ;)

  20. mike

    There is another site that is just like this one called Campus Gossip. http://www.campusgossip.com . I wonder if they are dealing with the same problems?

  21. MJ

    The Juicy Campus founder may not be as protected from lawsuits as he may think. The owners of an unmoderated law message board named xoxohth.com are being sued by some students who were allegedly defamed by anonymous users on that website. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know what the outcome of that lawsuit will be. The issue may not be as clear cut as the JC founder hopes it is.

  22. Dave

    @GFox, your point about a site being liable for ‘encouraging’ defamation does seem a reasonable from a laymen’s perspective, but can you site any sources on this?

  23. Dave

    Another point to add is that the Section 230 clause was what protected Wikipedia when there was defamatory posted about John Seigenthaler Sr. - stating he was invovled with the Kennedy assasintaiton. This was a huge news story at the time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....ontroversy

    Even Seigenthaler himself acknowledged there was “little legal recourse” that he could pursue against Wikipedia in his op-ed piece about the matter:

    “Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.” That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....edit_x.htm

    So while I’m sure this protection isn’t fully ‘bulletproof’, I don’t think it’s quite as vulnerable as some of the commenters, and Michael, have suggested.

    I would love to see evidence to the contrary from anyone because I’m sure many of us are running/planning startups that could benefit from these protections.

  24. David Mackey

    Interesting. I’m not sure where I fall on the whole libel/slander issue. Sometimes it seems a little scary since one can be sued, thus discouraging free speech, even if one only spoke the truth.

  25. Dave

    Another point to add is that the Section 230 clause was what protected Wikipedia when there was defamatory posted about John Seigenthaler Sr. - stating he was invovled with the Kennedy assasintaiton. This was a huge news story at the time.

    Even Seigenthaler himself acknowledged there was “little legal recourse” that he could pursue against Wikipedia in his op-ed piece about the matter:

    “Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.” That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....edit_x.htm

    So while I’m sure this protection isn’t fully ‘bulletproof’, I don’t think it’s quite as vulnerable as some of the commenters, and Michael, have suggested.

    I would love to see evidence to the contrary from anyone because I’m sure many of us are running/planning startups that could benefit from these protections.

  26. Caligula

    @ David: Public disclosure of private facts which hit a certain threshold are not protected under free speech. From what I can tell, just about everyone on that site is legally a private individual. If I were to (say) reveal the crossdressing habits of a student who had done nothing to place his name out there in public, I’d be nailed. Hard. And no pun is intended.

    The operator may be legally in the clear but that won’t stop him from having a lawyer on retainer to dismiss all of the suits and/or comply with subpoenas for those who can be held legally responsible. I believe that’s Arrington’s point. Click them google ads, because probably 90% of the revenue is going to go to compliance.

    tl;dr: Starting a business in which in-house legal council to handle daily hassles is going to be an absolute necessity isn’t really a smart idea.

  27. Dave

    @Caligula, fairs points for sure. Happen to have any links to help determine where these thresholds exist?

  28. ZiZi

    what a creepy scummy nasty site, am sure it reflects on the type of person this scummy nasty retarded founder is.
    he is a real creep a bet

  29. hhhhh

    vhjhv

  30. Caligula

    @ Dave
    The legal language states that the threshold is disclosure of private information which is not of public concern which a reasonable person would find offensive. This is the point where the right to free speech runs into the brick wall of the right to privacy.

    Has anyone discussing carrier laws actually looked at the site? I’ll crack on Arrington with the best of you but he’s 100% correct, and suits against the owner won’t be as open and shut as, say, the comments here. He’s virtually begging people to libel.

  31. Kristin K

    The Web site is like an interactive version of The Slam Book from Mean Girls…

  32. Bob

    You know what’s weird, I read on juicy campus that Matt Ivester gave a girl herpes.

    hah!

  33. Burt

    I guess this cat never heard of 4chan before. It’s essentially the same model.

  34. Dave

    @Caligula, thanks for your thoughts!

  35. Brownstoner

    I faced this issue with a site I launched a couple of years ago called brokerate.com. It was supposed to be a site for user feedback about NYC real estate agents but it devolved so quickly into an unmanageable sea of competitive back-stabbing that within a few weeks I pulled the plug on it despite all the traffic numbers going in the right direction. In the end, I decided I didn’t want to be facilitating that kind of behavior. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. That’s what a conscience is for.
    Brownstoner

  36. cuzican54

    This website really reminds me of Truemors.com and I think that the JuicyCampus can benefit a lot by talking to Guy Kawasaki…

    I also gave the team my constructive feedback here:
    http://chide.it/post/42/

  37. Gfox

    @Dave, all I have to base my argument on is a social media legal workshop I attended and a very limited understanding on the issue. One of the case studies presented in the workshop involved a website encouraging users to participate in a mash-up video and song contest. The legal issue discussed revolved around rights infringement by the consumer being an issue for the website for encouraging the infringement (and not even really encouraging but also, not prohibiting infringement). I took it upon my self to expand this thinking into the JC example. I still think, it could be argued…

  38. Jeremy

    http://www.CampusGossip.com is just like it, but most of the content seems story oriented instead. I find a lot of the content more entertaining.

  39. Deren

    Because of many people being attacked on college campuses throughout the country, a friend of mine made a website that sells self defense products for kids to stay safe. Check us out at http://www.thebestpepperspray.com or http://www.officialqualityproducts.com