Lets talk about JuicyCampus.com
I was one of about half a dozen students that attended the SGA meeting last night to discuss a resolution to ban access to the Web site from Pepperdine's campus. I was glad to see that the senators spent some time debating the topic before just voting to pass the resolution.
I am very disappointed that SGA had a knee-jerk reaction to try and censor the students they represent instead of use the thousands of student dollars and other resources at their disposal to actually attempt to solve this problem.
The bottom line here is that I do not want any group of students or administrators deciding for me or anyone else what Web site I should not be allowed to view. I did not vote for any member of SGA so they could attempt to govern students actions.
Asking the administration for censorship is dangerous and short sighted. The ban will not solve any problems. These are not posts being written by me as an editor at the Graphic, these posts are being written by you guys, your roommates, Greek brothers and sisters and people with too much time on their hands.
No one supports or agrees with whats happening on the Web site. SGA has formed a subcommittee that will hopefully have an actual dialogue with students about these issues instead of trying to govern student actions.
3 comments:
If you are using the university's bandwidth or server space, then yes, it is the SGA's business as well as the university's.
The SGA seems to be trying to bring the truth out about websites such as this. These sites only exist to have others populate them, and bring in more visitors. The end result? The site places ads, which they get paid for displaying. The more visitors, the more clicks the more money. These companies then turn around and are sold for millions (FaceBook, YouTube) and ALL made by the people that visit. Yet who got rich? In the end the website states that the posters are to blame, and not them. Can you support this lack of integrity?
Support a website that matters.. not one that is created from gossip and innuendo, most often created with alterior motives in mind (revenge).
I am a 41 year old and I believe this site is terrible and what it amounts to is the humiliation of others for either profit or as a way to make certain people feel superior. It's the equivalent of someone selling crack cocaine (benefitting by others misfortunes or mistakes). These individuals who participate in this are not creative and to utilize the free speech argument as a justification for humiliating is a lazy way of making money and substantiating the sites existence. Whether this site beleives it or not this site is no different than the kkk.
fbanyon, your analogies are poorly crafted. Members of the KKK break laws against murder, assault, and other hate crimes. They are generally motivated by racism, whereas the management of JuicyCampus is motivated by the pursuit of profit.
Crack dealers are motivated by profit, but they are breaking existing laws that forbid the sale illegal substances. The management of JuicyCampus is not actually breaking any laws. They are creating a virtual 'bathroom wall' for people to post whatever they want. JuicyCampus doesn't bear any legal responsibility for what individuals post. It's the people who post libel on the website who are actually committing a crime.
I believe that it is immoral for JuicyCampus to host an unmanaged website that enables people to post slander (I could use Kant, Bentham, or Aristotle to rationalize that belief). Your moral arguments need to be more sophisticated than merely "It's no different than the NAZIs" or "Jesus says you should treat others as you would like to be treated". What are the social justice implications? What sort of legislation would preserve speech rights and yet encourage website owners to remove slanderous content? Since this is a academic environment, you should use reason and logic a bit more skillfully.
Post a Comment