logo SPLC

The decision was made to ban JuicyCampus.com from the university's servers after an upset student's parent complained to Michael Freeman, vice president for student affairs, about an anonymous comment posted about her child.

Freeman would not comment on the specifics of the anonymous comment except to say he felt there was a safety concern.

JuicyCampus is a Web site targeted towards college students who are encouraged to post anonymous comments with the latest gossip from their campuses. There is no registration process and anyone can post an anonymous comment.

Tennessee State University's ban became public after Matt Ivester, CEO and president of JuicyCampus.com, sent an open letter to media outlets decrying the decision by Freeman.

In the letter, Ivester derided Freeman's decision as "Orwellian" and "joining the ranks of the Chinese government in internet censorship."

Freeman disagreed, saying the site is still accessible to students using third-party companies such as a Blackberry or an iPhone.

"The Chinese government blocking a site means no one can get to that site," Freeman said. "Tennessee State University on a private network, blocking a site, where folks still have access to it, is a bit of a difference in blocking don't you think?"

Freeman said he made the decision on Nov. 12 — the same day the mother made the complaint. He said he did not consult legal professionals to determine if banning the site would impose First Amendment violations.

"Well, I had my own sense that it would not," Freeman said. "Having been in higher ed for a while, I've dealt with a number of different issues over the years."

Freeman backed up his decision by providing a written legal opinion from the school's Office of Chief of Staff and University Counsel stating that the university's servers were not public forums.

The opinion also stated the ban did not violate the First Amendment for two reasons. The first reason explained was that students have newer ways of accessing the Internet using their cell phones and through other wireless network providers.

"They don't need our network," the written opinion stated. "There may have been a time when students did not have access to the Internet outside of computers, but those days are long gone."

The second reason was that the university is funded through state appropriated funds and student enrollment fees set out in the school's policies.

"The University can limit the use for which this resource is provided because, legally, our computer network is not a public forum as, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, a public entity's provision of internet access does not create a public forum," TSU's legal opinion stated.

The school's legal department went on to say that a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, United States v. American Library Association, protected the school from any First Amendment liability.

Adam Goldstein, legal advocate for the Student Press Law Center, disagreed saying the case referenced was a federal funding-related lawsuit that would not apply to colleges.

"Even if the network isn't a forum, they still can't censor the site," Goldstein said. "You don't get to censor anything you feel like because you don't like the speaker."

But TSU's legal opinion stated that the use of Internet filtering software to block certain Web sites would not violate anyone's First Amendment rights, according to that same lawsuit.

Goldstein explained that U.S. v. American Library Association did discuss the use of Internet filtering software as a way to prevent minors from accessing pictures that were pornographic or deemed harmful. But, under that same lawsuit adults at libraries would still be able to request the filter be taken off for things minors were not able to access.

"The ALA case states nothing more than that the federal government can require attempts to block pornography on computers accessible to minors as a condition of getting federal funding," Goldstein said. "It doesn't say that a college can filter anything it wants anytime someone complains."

Freeman also backed his decision by saying there was a Tennessee Board of Regents policy that directed the school's network be set up solely for educational and research purposes. He said he looked at the site and determined the site did not apply to the policy.

Ivester said students at TSU should be upset about the ban.

"They should be absolutely outraged," he said. "I think it's just completely incompatible with the ideals of higher education. Limiting information online is not something a school with a true academic mission would do."

Freeman said what he did not like most about JuicyCampus was that the site was made up completely of anonymous comments. Ivester disputed that by saying the Supreme Court holds anonymous speech constitutionally protected.

"His (Freeman) inability to quell the concerns of an angry parent and explain the free speech implications is really not an excuse," Ivester said. "What he should have said is 'if you have a problem with the site, take it up with the site. (Tennessee State University) doesn't have anything to do with that.'"

Ivester also said he would support a lawsuit opposing the censorship any student at Tennessee State University would want to bring against the school.

"And to the extent that students are looking for help with that, they should contact us at cs@juicycampus.com," he said. "And, we'll try to connect them with the right resources, whether it's lawyers or free speech advocacy groups or whoever will be able to point them in the right direction."

JuicyCampus.com currently gets about 150,000 visits a day and about one million unique visitors a month, according to Ivester.