Not many people know, but Chelsa Shults has two webbed toes on her left foot.

But by reading posts from juicycampus.com, Shults’ fellow students at Harding University can learn this and other bits of information, ranging from the hilarious to the inflammatory.

The Web site, created by Duke University alumnus Matt Ivester in 2005, allows anyone with Internet access to post anything they want about anyone they want. All the while they are able keep ‘100 percent anonymity,’ according to the Web site’s front page.

An article published in The New York Times on March 16 brought controversy to the site, after a post shattered the reputation of a male Yale University student. The link led to a video of the student engaging in sexual acts with three other men.

Juicy Campus could not be reached for comment.

This post, and others like it, labeling students as promiscuous or revealing private information, have lead to a new kind of debate over free speech on the Internet.

Barbara Fought, the director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and associate professor in broadcast journalism, explained that lawsuits for defamation can happen online just as well as other forms of media.

‘The courts have given speech on the Internet as much protection as any medium and in fact more than radio and television,’ Fought said. ‘But all free speech has limits, and just like somebody can sue and recover damages for defamation in the newspaper, somebody can sue and recover damages for defamation online.’

Fought said a lot of people, particularly college students, don’t understand they can be responsible for defamation – which is anything they say that a jury would believe would lower the person’s reputation.

In order to classify a statement defamatory, the plaintiff must prove six things, Fought said.

The plaintiff’s reputation was harmed in some way.

The defendant did so with negligence or actual malice.

The defamatory statements in question are, in fact, false.

The plaintiff must supply specific language that is defamatory.

The defendant must have specifically identified the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must supply proof that the information in question was published.

Bob Lloyd, a professor of practice for newspaper and magazine journalism, stressed the factors that can make the Internet both an open forum for ideas and a place where users take advantage of online identity.

‘In principal, in general, I think that the anonymity of the Internet can be a strength in many cases, but in this case where you post comments about other people without any kind of accountability I think is wrong,’ he said. ‘I believe that people ought to stand up and be able attach their name to whatever opinion they have, and to not do that actually borders on cowardice.’

While the Internet can be an important source for discussion, Lloyd said, it could also be a place that causes more harm than good.

‘I believe that the anonymity that this site will grant someone will prove to be more hurtful than helpful to society,’ Lloyd said. ‘It gives you free license to be mean, to be nasty and to say hurtful things that don’t actually help society, but actually tear down the social fabric.’

Michael Cree, a graduate student in the magazine, newspaper and online journalism program disagreed, saying the site does no more or less good than most others on the Internet.

‘I suppose it’s just a good a reason for a Web site as any,’ he said. ‘It’s a bit of fun. I wouldn’t really take it particularly seriously. I’m sure if it was completely defamatory in any way, then maybe you’d be wanting to take it down.’

Jordan Meddy, a graduate student in broadcast journalism, said Juicy Campus isn’t the first of its kind.

‘In my undergrad, we had this thing called ‘The Gossip Server,’ which was basically this Web site where you could just post things anonymously about people,’ he said. ‘It was pretty funny.’

Although it seems the possibilities for content on Juicy Campus are limitless, there are restrictions to free speech, even on the wide open Internet, Fought said.

She added that people choose not to sue in many cases when defamatory information appears on talk radio and on the Internet.

‘There are some limits, and one of those limits is that we don’t tolerate people’s reputation being tarnished, if the info is in fact false,’ she said. ‘If it’s true, that person doesn’t have much chance of success.’

Juicy Campus, though, is not liable for any of the information posted on it Web site, according to an interview with Michael Fertik, the founder of reputationdefender.com, which is a site that helps clients with statements made about them on the Internet, in an article in The New York Times.

‘Legally, Juicy Campus is fully, absolutely immune no matter what it runs on its site from users, just like AOL is not responsible for nasty comments in its AOL chat rooms,’ Fertik said in the Times article.

Fought added to this, stating Web sites don’t have to be responsible for comments posted they aren’t aware of.

‘The other piece of the law is that traditionally booksellers like Barnes & Noble haven’t been held responsible if it happens to sell a defamatory book that it doesn’t know about,’ she said. ‘So there is a law that Congress has passed saying that Web site owners who do not know about defamatory information, once told, should take it down, but can’t be sued if they didn’t know, and that whole area of law is still evolving.’

But Fought declared her views on the site in a clear and simple way.

‘I’m a real advocate of free speech,’ she said. ‘I’m not an advocate of ruining people’s reputations falsely.’

wfmcmill@syr.edu

Published on March 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm