Search News


Browse Archives

News

Using JuicyCampus as 'a Weapon Against Itself'

October 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Typically, students curious to read the latest gossip and hearsay written by their classmates have only to stop by JuicyCampus, an anonymous message board that has gained notoriety over the past year for refusing to block potentially libelous and damaging posts that in many cases name names.

On the George Washington University page, for example, anyone can peruse a thread titled "cheating girlfriends/boyfriends," which under normal circumstances would feature an array of obscene messages, names of students and vulgar pile-ons. One of the first posts, however, doesn't immediately call to mind the faithfulness of known couples on campus:

"Latin is an Italic language, historically spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. Through the Roman conquest, Latin spread throughout the Mediterranean and a large part of Europe...."

Scrolling a bit further reveals even more unrelated nuggets.

"The shape of Egyptian pyramids is thought to represent the primordial mound from which the Egyptians believed the earth was created. The shape is also thought to be representative of the descending rays of the sun, and most pyramids were faced with polished, highly reflective white limestone, in order to give them a brilliant appearance when viewed from a distance...."

These curious posts, and many others like them, are part of a haphazard, grass-roots campaign of students trying to subvert the site from within. The site has inspired attempts at some campuses to block it entirely, at least one lawsuit, and a flurry of protests from students and administrators alike. But opposition has always collided with a fact of life: Enough college students are willing to feed JuicyCampus that it will always have an audience.

Instead, a group of bloggers at George Washington and elsewhere have found that they can use the unregulated nature of the site against it -- burying the nasty stuff with irrelevant Wikipedia entries, nonsense poetry and dada potpourri.

Max McGowen, a GW student who blogged about JuicyCampus this month, publicly criticized the site when he and some of his friends were called out by name in several posts. His blog entry on the subject, titled "The Chains of Identity Released, the Plastics of GW Attack," called for a boycott and attacked the student culture at GW as part of the problem.

"As one of my friends astutely observed, reading GW’s page is like reading the script of Mean Girls. Except that instead of North Shore High School, now it's Foggy Bottom. What JuicyCampus has effectively done for GW students is enable them to express their true selves -- their true, exceptionally soulless selves," he wrote. The site's GW-focused section launched several weeks ago.

But other bloggers piled on, arguing that a boycott would be ineffective. "For the health of the student community, we can't ignore this forum. We need to turn GW's JuicyCampus into a joke. Then, maybe, other students will realize the absurdity of it all, and play along," wrote The GW Patriot, which encouraged students to "flood the forum as if we aren't a tiny minority of its posters," invoking the presidential campaign of Ron Paul.

"If we can keep this up for long enough, people will find the site unreliable and unusable," said a post on the blog The Colonialist. "The hidden ugly content will be flooded with poetic responses and Wikipedia entries. No one will need to use the site anymore. No one will develop the habit of reading it every day. Juicy Campus will cease to be relevant."

JuicyCampus's founder, Matt Ivester, has publicly defended the site on free speech grounds and stated that the discussions it fosters happen on college campuses anyway. By that logic, according to its critics, the same goes for the assortment of e.e. cummings verses and Scripture that now finds its way into the site's message board threads.

"Who is to say that I don't think a Wikipedia article about Border Collies qualifies as 'Juice'? Maybe a biography of Chelsea Clinton is the hot gossip on campus. These posts have just as much worth, if not more, as anything else on JC," The Colonialist's founder, Travis Helwig, said in an e-mail.

"I think using the site as a weapon against itself is the only way to really stop it. People go there to see names they recognize, and if they don't find names they recognize, the site serves no purpose. The explicit goal is to not to destroy their business, but to rally behind the idea that there are more people on our campus against this website than for it. The site only works if the students on a campus feed the site content. The students are the only ones who can stop the site from taking over. Socially, Juicy Campus is mutually assured destruction, and most people can see that."

So far, at least, the approach seems to be working, although some have noted that the rate of postings (of both the "Juicy" and G-rated variety) has dropped to coincide with midterms. Bloggers at Georgetown responded that they were employing similar tactics, writing posts about nonexistent students. "I understand what they're doing, it's clearly a successful tactic ... the only reason why I didn't do that personally was that I didn't want to drive any traffic to the site at all," said McGowen, who called for the boycott, in an interview.

Students at other colleges, like Williams College and Cornell University, are using their own innovations, such as automating computers to post the full text of the Bible or entire novels.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Using JuicyCampus as 'a Weapon Against Itself'

  • A Teachable Moment Concerning Western Culture
  • Posted by Lowell Ballard , Director of Computing Services at Wheaton College on October 21, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • Many of the posts on this site are offensive and could be considered harrassment or libel since it seems that there is not an easy way to have incorrect/libelous information removed. So, what is at question here is not just this site but any site that allows anonymous posts and does not remove potentially libelous content. This is a good opportunity to clarify the legal responsibilities of the system administrators of these kinds of sites.

    Bombing the site with irrelavent and/or excessively long text is the wrong answer. Why not file some law suites to have the libelous content removed from the site? And if that does not work, why not get some new legislation sponsored? This is a great opportunity for students to learn how to use the American system of law, with all it's benefits and drawbacks, rather than taking the easy path of attacking these kinds of sites.

    And rather than posting irrelevent text, why not post positive information about the problems of libel, how to work out differences, how to maintain healthy relationships, etc.. When people in our society display their problems and immaturity, those who have learned to live by higher social standards should lead by example.

    Posts to these kinds of sites show the sad underbelly of American society. Rather than hiding or trashing these kinds of sites, lets work together to address the actual issues raised.

  • Safe Harbor
  • Posted by Chris on October 21, 2008 at 11:35am EDT
  • Lowell:

    The legal responsibilities of the site are already quite clear. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, websites have immunity for defamatory or libelous postings by their users. Claims can only be made against the individuals who originally posted the statements, not against the website hosting them. There have been numerous cases putting this to the test, almost all of which have resulted in a win for the website being sued.

  • Posted by Marjorie on October 21, 2008 at 12:25pm EDT
  • The use of the law is not only unclear, but also costly. As a graduate student who has heard about the disgusting things that people put up, this is a simple way for students to fight back. We spend hours a day at our computers. Why not use it to flood the system. What I hadn't realized was that students still go to juicy campus. I thought it was a faze, like slap bracelets and sideways ponytails. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case.

  • Posted by Michael Pyshnov on October 21, 2008 at 3:25pm EDT
  • The only problem I see is that postings are anonymous. In a decent society, in the past, anonymous letter was always considered wrong. The solution now would be not to take seriously anonymous postings. Hopefully, the standard of decency can be restored, and, the web sites will appear that will allow free speech, but not anonymous posting. One who has self-respect must stand behind his words. Unfortunately, Internet, even academic one, made a grave mistake. It must be corrected. (Yes, of course I know about the justifications, and I think they are wrong too. Again, you say nothing if your signature is absent.)

  • JuicyCampus Censorshop
  • Posted by Gabriel Reif , Assistant Director of Greek Life at Binghamton University on October 22, 2008 at 4:40pm EDT
  • Over the past few weeks, I've had a number of students come to me seeking a way to escape to wrath of JuicyCampus.com. I tried implementing the tactic of making copious nonsensical posts. Unfortunately (and ironically), within 15 minutes of my posts being made, they had disappeared from the site. It appears that JC is now censoring their boards to ensure only legitimate, offensive content appears.

  • Anonymous posting
  • Posted by J.P. Craig on October 22, 2008 at 5:10pm EDT
  • If it's one thing the ease of anonymous communication on the Internet should teach us, it's that anonymity frees writers of any feeling of personal responsibility for the harm their words may do. Otherwise intelligent people engage in the most juvenile name-calling and fallacious reasoning when there is no name to hold them to account. For an example, see the discussion here of the cancellation of the Ayers speech at the University of Nebraska.

    I'm not a fan of censorship, but it wouldn't be censorship to block the IP hosting this website, if its material is harmful enough. But it's my opinion that the site only grows more compelling the more fuss is made over it. If people want to spam it or jam it or whatever, they should. But ultimately, the best way to quell a loudmouthed idiot (or collectivity of them) is a deaf ear.

  • Ca.Geocities
  • Posted by DFS on October 25, 2008 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Michael, how much more wrong could you be?

    The anonymous letter was not always considered wrong. By your criteria, all whistle-blowers are assumed to be liars.

    Keep fighting that uphill battle against the internet -- excuse me -- the latest manifestation of progress. Perhaps your quixotic exploits will then persuade the world that you and Lowell -- another of your ilk -- are much more aware than the rest of us of the ccurrent and fixable condition of society than we see it to be.

    To paraphrase, I think that it was Shakespeare who suggested: "First kill all the lawyers."

  • Lowell
  • Posted by DFS on October 25, 2008 at 1:50pm EDT
  • Believe it or not -- we trust IHE's mechanisms.

    Whether you like it or not, this community of people will still communicate with each other.

    Get over it.