JuicyCampus, a website that invites students to post anonymous (and often-times libelous) messages about their peers, is headed for the Deadpool. In a blog post on the company’s website, founder Matt Ivester blames the site’s demise on a lack of revenue, despite steady growth:

Unfortunately, even with great traffic and strong user loyalty, a business can’t survive and grow without a steady stream of revenue to support it. In these historically difficult economic times, online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved. JuicyCampus’ exponential growth outpaced our ability to muster the resources needed to survive this economic downturn, and as a result, we are closing down the site as of Feb. 5, 2009.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the site’s advertising issues stemmed from the fact that it often featured incredibly hateful and mean-spirited content that advertisers were hesitant to be associated with. Ivester has long maintained that the site was for ‘Juicy’ gossip, not mean insults, but with top threads including “Biggest Whore At Tulane”, it was hardly a place for light-hearted fun. In light of the overwhelmingly negative comments found on the site, some schools began banning JuicyCampus entirely, leading Ivester to claim that they were “joining the ranks of the Chinese government in internet censorship, and spitting in the faces of everyone who believes in free discourse online”.

Ivester may also be growing increasingly worried about the litigation threats the site receives for defamation and libel. Ivester has claimed legal protection, citing the fact that he didn’t author any of the defamatory posts, but he may not be too eager to put those claims to test in court.

Update: The site’s FAQ discounts any suggestions of possible lawsuits or advertisers pulling out from the site, but given JuicyCampus’s history of turning a blind eye to trouble, it’s a little hard to take at face value:

Does this have anything to do with the investigations by Attorneys General? Other legal reasons?
No, not at all. No charges were ever brought against JuicyCampus by any AG. The site is likewise not shutting down as a result of any lawsuits or other sort of legal trouble. JuicyCampus’ services and policies have always been well within the law.

Is this because advertisers pulled their ads from your site?
No. Online ad spend dropped across the board as the economy took a turn for the worse. Our advertisers have spent less, but have remained loyal, and for that we are very much appreciative.

Is this because too many campuses banned you?
No. The vast majority of campuses decided not to censor their students. Our traffic levels have remained very strong. Any revenue lost as a result of the campuses that banned us was negligible.

We’ve added JuicyCampus to the Deadpool.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Get ready for some drama, with Ivester claiming TSU is “joining the ranks of the Chinese government in internet censorship, and spitting in the faces of everyone who believes in free discourse online”.

University administrators are probably acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their students. They’re just misguided, and missing the big picture. The most significant threats to free speech (in the U.S. at least) tend to come not from tyrants who openly question the value of the First Amendment, but from well-meaning busybodies who want to protect peoples’ feelings—a mission that is generally incompatible with free speech.

The idea of banning JuicyCampus.com has been considered, and flatly rejected, at the nation’s premier universities (including Yale, Duke, Princeton, Harvard, and many others). These universities decided that limiting free speech would be fundamentally incompatible with their educational missions, and that censorship was a slippery slope that they did not want to be on. Instead, administrators at many top universities seized the opportunity to educate their students. All over the country, discussions have taken place with regard to what is and is not appropriate to discuss in a public forum, and how students should react when they see something they disagree with online.

This approach stands in stark contrast with TSU’s decision, which was to censor the speech of its own students. In a truly Orwellian manner, the University chose to limit students’ abilities to read and write to an un-moderated message board online, because their speech was reflecting “negatively” on TSU. Freeman’s position would seem to be that his students cannot be trusted with their First Amendment rights, perhaps believing that they are too immature or irresponsible. Perhaps though, they are just under-educated on this issue. But, unlike his colleagues at top universities, Mr. Freeman has abdicated his responsibility for educating those students, and in doing so has disgraced both his University and his State.

Because TSU’s decision seems to violate its students’ First Amendment rights, there is some question as to how long their ban will remain in effect. Students and free speech advocacy groups are already discussing legal action.

JuicyCampus believes that the answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. To that end, JuicyCampus encourages students who disagree with certain comments to reply to those comments with additional information and/or their own opinions. Everyone has an equal voice on JuicyCampus.

JuicyCampus claims nearly 1 million unique visitors per month, but both Quantcast and Compete estimates suggest it’s more around 1/10 of that. The website recently expanded, opening support to over 500 new campuses.

We’d be surprised if TSU will remain the only institution to block access to the website, and we’re still doubtful if Ivester will be able to avoid being slapped with a lawsuit by upset students and/or their parents. He acknowledged to us earlier that JuicyCampus was under investigation by Attorneys General in New Jersey and Connecticut, but we remain unsure about the current status.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

JuicyCampus, the controversial site that lets students post totally anonymous (and often malicious) comments about their college classmates, has launched a new version of its site and opened support to over 185 new campuses, with 500 expected by the end of the month. JuicyCampus is essentially a public, anonymous bulletin board that encourages users to gossip about eachother, often referring to their targets by their full names.

The site’s founder, Matt Ivester, continues to portray JuicyCampus in a positive light, explaining that he’s intent on “Making juicy campus a place where students can discus the topics that matter to them most in a manner they deem appropriate”.

In the past, Ivester has also written blog posts asking users to play nice:

“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.”

Unfortunately, most students choose to degrade their peers, oftentimes with disparaging remarks that are impossible to counter against because of the site’s anonymity. Ivester likes to act like hurtful gossip isn’t the sole purpose for the site’s existence, but with today’s press release listing such topics as “Cheaters”, “Biggest Stoner”, and “In The Closet”, it’s clear that the site is by no means benevolent – Ivester isn’t fooling anyone. The site may not be breaking any laws, but it shouldn’t be misrepresenting itself, either.

JuicyCampus seems like a prime target for lawsuits from upset students and parents, but Ivester says the company has yet to be sued for the site’s negative content. However, he does acknowledge that it is currently under investigation by Attorneys General in New Jersey and Connecticut (he refused to comment on the cases, but said that the site’s expansion was indicative of his view on their eventual outcomes).

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

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.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0