TSU’s Juiced Out Ban
Tennessee State University just got a little less juicy. University Vice President for Student Affairs, Michael Freeman, has banned Juicycampus.com from the campus network and ignited a rather passionate debate over first amendment rights and its limitations in cyberspace.
Fellow blogger, Alex Bargmann, condemned Juicy Campus some time ago as the “Vulture of Higher Education.” For the most part, I agree with Alex—Juicy Campus represents the ugliest and perhaps the most despicable application of Web 2.0. But does ugliness necessitate and justify censorship at a public, state-funded academic institution?
CEO and President of Juicy Campus, Matt Ivester, argues that it doesn’t. In an open letter, Ivester makes a persuasive case against TSU’s ban:
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.”
This debate might be court-bound as “Students and free speech advocacy groups are already discussing legal action” and may also present itself as one of those unfortunate circumstances, where what is right is not necessarily what is legal. Juicy Campus is vile and much of what is written across its filthy message boards may very well be considered slander per se in our law courts. Further, Juicy Campus may potentially suffer the resultant legal ramifications as a proxy for the anonymous slanderer. But however offensive Juicy Campus might be, it is hardly the only offensive site out there, and the imagination needs little stretching to discover that it is far from the worst.
In an ideal world, students wouldn’t say terrible things about their peers or even desire to do so. But the world isn’t ideal and evils like Juicy Campus do exist. Our constitution and the rights provided are meant to accept some evils as the price for our liberties. I cannot put it any better than the French philosopher Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Perhaps, TSU would be wise to think a little bit more about Voltaire and a little bit less about Ivester these days.
Juicy Campus may pose a serious threat to TSU’s students, but as of yet, that threat is not a legal one. Banning it from the campus is not the answer. Rather, challenging Ivester in court when the circumstances warrant it is a far better way to defend decency in the sometimes dangerous world of web 2.0.
Leave a comment and tell us what you think.