There's Nothing Juicy About It
With JuicyCampus.com spreading through Georgetown, there are no winners on the Hilltop.
Juicy Campus is a dangerous and undesired element, a cancer to our community, and action needs to be taken against its potential to do harm to our school. The Web site allows anyone to anonymously post gossip about whomever they want without any shred of proof. It’s a safe haven for spiteful people with an agenda to say mean things while cowardly hiding behind the cloak of anonymity that the Web site provides. So far, there have been very few posts of a seriously grotesque nature, and Georgetown should be applauded for this, but the possibility for serious harm exists. We fear that it will only be a matter of time before the Web site becomes a widely used soapbox for anonymous accusations, name-calling and rumor-milling. Not only GUSA and the administration but students themselves need to work to prevent the growth of Juicy Campus’ presence at Georgetown, and the best way to do this is by boycotting the Web site.
Though we respect the Juicy Campus’ First Amendment right to exist, we as students should do everything in our power to thwart its growth into a campus fixture. The Web site is entertaining to read, especially for those of us who aren’t tuned in to every aspect of campus gossip, but the damage it can inflict on people’s lives far outweighs the moment’s worth of entertainment you get from reading about someone else’s misfortune.
While there are still many posts on Juicy Campus from students making fun of the premise of the Web site, things are starting to get intense. Perhaps THE HOYA is partially to blame. It is probably no coincidence that, after we ran a front page story covering the Web site, the number of serious posts exploded. We don’t condemn this decision — after all, newspaper’s responsibility is to report the news — but the connection seems evident.
Some projects are already in the works to stop the spread of the Juicy infestation. GUSA President Patrick Dowd (SFS ’09) is speaking with the administration about having University Information Services block JuicyCampus.com from the Georgetown network. This would make it impossible to access the Web site via any of the wireless networks on campus, or via any Internet connections in campus housing. Dowd feels strongly about the issue, saying about JuicyCampus.com, “It’s despicable, and there’s no place for that type of that hurtful speech in our community. ... It doesn’t help anyone, and it has no place at Georgetown. Maybe there are some people that disagree, but few will be sorry to see it go, and if they are, maybe they need to ask themselves some tough questions about why.”
Even though we’d like for the university or the student association to put a stop to Juicy Campus — and they should be applauded for any steps they take — ultimately, it’s up to the students. The only way to stop Juicy Campus is to boycott the Web site. It is only by taking away the audience that people will stop posting. So Georgetown, let’s show that we’re above this cowardly trend.
Sep 19 2008 at 1:25 p.m.
Most Hoyas didn't even know about JuicyCampus.com until The Hoya brought it up. After The Hoya covered it, it went from having 2 pages of posts to 15. Shame on you for trying to create controversy so you have something about which to write an editorial.
Sep 19 2008 at 1:45 p.m.
Paul is right. Hoya writers love to find some kind of controversy or "make a splash" with a story. In this case, the Hoya dragged up some dumb website that no one cared about and decided to make it a major news story. NOW, you've gone and turned it into an editorial. The Hoya should be paid for advertising for Juicy. It's a dumb site, but it's even dumber to chastise Georgetown students for going to it when the only reason most know that it exists in the first place because of the Hoya.
Sep 19 2008 at 2:35 p.m.
Just let's be clear here. It can hem and haw all it wants, but the HOYA just called for censorship. It reported on Pat Dowd's steps to ban JuicyCampus, and then said that he should be "applauded for any steps" he takes.
Talk about "cowardly."
I think the best and most appropriate response is to quote the writer E.B. White: “I can only assume that your editorial writer tripped over the First Amendment and thought it was the office cat.”
Sep 19 2008 at 3:21 p.m.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue First Amendment rights for a website that is explicitly set up for the purposes of libel/slander of private individuals, especially considering the standard for determining libel against private individuals is much lower (negligence without malice can be enough) than against public figures.
I'm a passionate defender of the First Amendment as well, which is why I bother to know the actual provisions and precedents that have been established regarding its application.
Sep 20 2008 at 6:52 a.m.
Like Paul said: you report something, make it popular, then write another ridiculous self-righteous editorial with a lot of five dollar words.
While I agree the site can be harmful, blocking it from the school network is a step in the wrong direction. What's next? Blocking sites that go against the university mission? Blocking sites that contain criticism against the administration? Blocking pro-choice sites?
Sep 21 2008 at 6:47 a.m.
I wish gtown people would use faceliss.com. It use to be bored@butler.com, which was columbia's juicycampus.com. The interface is way better - I like the idea of a bored@lauinger.com
Oct 15 2008 at 5:06 a.m.
Have you guys seen http://www.collegeacb.com? They are the new juicycampus at georgetown apparently. It's not nearly as bad, but still goes over the line in some areas.