LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH ARE TESTED BY WEB SITE’S HURTFUL, HATEFUL POSTS

By Larry Magid

San Jose Mercury News

The online gossip site JuicyCampus.com carries this slogan: “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy.”I’m a strong advocate of free speech, and I recognize that there are legitimate reasons to protect people’s ability to be anonymous on the Internet. But JuicyCampus.com is exercising these rights in ways that are hurtful and possibly dangerous. I also understand the interest in gossip. But there’s a difference between gossip among friends, or published gossip about celebrities, and spreading nasty rumors about private citizens.

The site, which was reportedly founded by a 1995 Duke graduate, encourages students at selected colleges ranging from the Air Force Academy to Yale to anonymously post “juicy” comments about other students. And some of these comments can be downright vicious.

All of this is under the veil of anonymity. In support of its slogan “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy,” the site’s privacy and tracking policy states that “it is not possible for anyone to use this website to find out who you are or where you are located.” It further warns people who want to be “extra-cautious” that “servers do, as a matter of course, keep logs” that can include geographic information and IP addresses, the string of numbers that identify a computer on the Internet. It goes on to recommend ways to find free services that shield IP addresses.

A quick look at the site revealed a number of posts that use derogatory terms to out people as homosexuals, whether true or not. There were also posts suggesting that specific women students are sluts, often giving details about their supposed sexual activities. In some cases, these posts contain a phone number or even a dorm address, encouraging others to seek contact with the person. Other comments are sexist, racist, hateful and downright mean. Many mention names of what appear to be real students. Some postings might be best described as virtual terrorism. One posting implied a certain named female student was available for sex with strangers and included her cell phone number and dorm information. If not terrorism, this is at the very least cyberbullying. Posting false information about people, impersonating others or simply being mean are all classic examples of cyberbullying.

There is nothing new about Web pages that contain rumors or lies about people. ConnectSafely.org, a Web forum I help run, receives regular reports about such postings on legitimate social Web sites.

In some cases there is nothing that can be done - free speech does give people the right to say what they think. But if the postings are libelous, defamatory, hateful or otherwise contrary to the site’s terms of service, we are typically able to get them taken down. The same is true if there is evidence that the posting or profile is impersonating someone else.

Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender.com said the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects the owner of the site against prosecution or civil action for user postings but doesn’t protect individual users. In other words, if you post something libelous or defamatory, you can be sued by the victim.

Trouble is, says Fertik, it’s a “right without a remedy” as there is often no practical way to find out who did the posting. It might be possible to find someone from their IP address, but that doesn’t always work. Besides, as JuicyCampus points out, there are ways to hide your IP.

Ironically, said Fertik, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides victims of copyright infringement greater protection than the Communications Decency Act gives victims of libel or defamation. A record company has a better chance of getting a judgment against a college student sharing music than a college student has against someone jeopardizing his or her reputation, privacy or even safety.

It’s tempting to argue there ought to be a law against sites like this. But before reacting too quickly, we need to think about the unintended consequences of going after this type of site.

I don’t think we want to outlaw all forms of gossip, nor do I think it’s a smart to require authentication before anyone can post anything online. That could have negative consequences on political dissidents, whistle-blowers and others for whom anonymity can be vital. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. As a parent, I would discourage my kids from using a site like this, and I think it’s reasonable for college campuses to at least discuss what they ought to do about sites that encourage hateful comments.

About the only good thing I can say about JuicyCampus is that on the two days I tested it last week, access was extremely slow. Perhaps it was overwhelmed because of all the press coverage. Whatever the reason, it’s the first time I’ve ever been happy about a site being hard to reach.

by Anne Collier
NetFamilyNews

This is a trend deserving parents’ and, for that matter, everyone else’s attention - especially teens’. The Associated Press report of Utah middle-schoolers taking and sending nude photos on their cellphones joins similar reports from Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in the past few months. And in 2007 the child-porn-distribution convictions of two Florida teens were upheld in a state appeals court (they’d taken sexually explicit photos of themselves and sent them to the boy’s personal email account).

In the Utah case, the prosecutor told the AP that police expect to see more cases like this - they were in fact dealing with “several other similar unrelated cases” - and he is not alone in his struggle to figure out how to handle cases involving teens distributing photos that in effect constitute child pornography depicting themselves and their peers. They cover a full range of behavior, from impulsive to developmentally fairly normal adolescent risk assessment to outright harassment and bullying. For example, here’s what investigators discovered in the Georgia case, as reported by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children:

“Some girls were peer-pressured into taking inappropriate images of themselves and sending them to the boys. Others complied with the boys’ requests for pictures because they had crushes on the boys. Many of the girls suffered from low self-esteem or did not understand the seriousness of the situation because ‘everybody is doing it.’ Few realized their images were being circulated throughout the school and, in one case, traded with a suspect in the United Kingdom. In another case, one of the boys was charging students at the school $25 to view graphic images of one of the female victims. As of this writing, investigators have tracked down hundreds of images, and at least one video, involving these victims.” [A partial report is under the second heading on this page at NCMEC.org.]

It’s important for teens and parents to know that these cases, which could technically be treated as federal felonies (child-porn distribution), are posing a real challenge to prosecutors. Det. Frank Dannahey, a youth officer in Connecticut for 17 years, agrees that this is a growing problem. A member of our Advisory Board, he emailed me last week in reference to my item on the Alabama case (and kindly gave me permission to publish his email, which describes a local case that struck him and offers teens some things to consider if they’re ever tempted to share intimate photos online or on phones):

“I have to agree that it would not be in the best interest of the kids to have them charged with a federal crime,” Detective Dannahey wrote. “I really don’t believe they understand the implications of what they are doing. You and I have been talking about this topic for a long time [see his description of a 13-year-old Connecticut girl’s ordeal in “Teen photos and a police officer’s story,” January 2006].

“I can’t tell you how many of these cases I have had to deal with or assist other agencies with,” he continued. “The long-term implications for these kids can be serious - not to mention the initial humiliation and embarrassment. I see these photos becoming an instrument in online bullying/harassment.

“I just recently closed a case in which a middle school girl shared nude photos of herself to males she met through IM sessions. In a different twist, the girl told me that she gave them (sent) the photos after being ‘intimidated’ online by the boys,” he wrote. “This is a very shy girl one would not expect to do this sort of thing. The girl told me that the boys she communicated with had a sort of ‘power’ over her in manipulating her to do something that she never thought she could do [which sounds to me like the Georgia case]. She was highly embarrassed by it. This was something that I had not heard before. When kids do this sort of thing it is usually meant to be a private thing between boyfriends/girlfriends. Of course we all know that teen love doesn’t last forever and, when the breakup happens, these types of photos get ‘out there.’ This is certainly an issue that I address in programs with parents and teens.

“In cases where a teen sends a ‘private’ photo to someone and it ends up being leaked to other people, the teen’s question to me is always the same - will anyone else see the image? Unfortunately, my answer to that question is always the same: ‘I don’t know’,” Dannahey continued. “Years ago, if a paper photo was taken from someone, they could possibly get it back, rip it up, and destroy the negative. Today in the digital age, getting a photo back that has been sent electronically is difficult at best and more likely improbable.

“I will usually tell teens the following when considering the sending of ‘private’ digital photos/videos to people online: Because digital media is so easily shared and reproduced, you need to consider several things before hitting the Send button:

by Anne Collier
NetFamilyNews

Last year a person who works for a psychiatric hospital and specializes in adolescent care posted in our forum at ConnectSafely.org asking if anyone had developed screening for “Internet addiction.” No one in the forum had, and I suspected this person was pioneering something, pointing to a challenge for social services and the health care profession for which there is little research. It has since occurred to me to put this question to Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist in Portland, Ore., who has worked with patients on game addiction.

Here’s our email conversation, illustrating the challenges this question poses to the medical profession (but stick with him, parents, because below the challenges is some helpful thinking for you):

NetFamilyNews: “Have you ever put together a screening list for ‘Internet addiction’ and ‘online porn addiction’ - what a parent or caregiver might look for to decide if a child needs help toward a better balance of activities? I’m sure there’s the usual sleeplessness, suffering grades, etc., but I’d appreciate a comprehensive list if you have one. ‘Game addiction’ too - all three would be great, but especially this blanket term we’re hearing, ‘Internet addiction’.”

Dr. Block: “I’ve given this a lot of thought and it is more difficult than I’d like to admit. I have made my own ‘testing instrument’ to detect ‘Pathological Computer Use,’ but it has not been ’standardized.’ That is, essentially, the issue.

“Lacking clear diagnostic criteria, we also lack a scientific test. Also, even using proposed criteria, we still need to compare the test to the gold standard - a clinical interview. You have to do this with a great many people, and that many interviews cost money. It also takes effort to find the representative patients.

“The only people that have done this that I trust are the South Koreans, who have spent bundles on the issue, and some psychiatrists in Taiwan. Their clinical test has been standardized against and compared to the clinical interview. And, they have a variant that is meant to be used by the parent. However, the test is culture-specific and would not translate well to computer use in the US. [For a solid look at cultural differences in social Web use between the US and Korea, see this article about Korean social networking in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.]

“That being said, I use a mnemonic to identify ‘SIGNS’ in at-risk people (kids or adults):

S = Sleep cycle is consistently advanced. Goes to sleep later and wakes later or is tired in the morning.
I = Irritable when not on the computer. Preoccupied thinking about the computer and their activities there (sex, gaming, browsing, tuning the system up, etc.). Can become enraged if told to stop using.
G = Guilty about his/her computer use so tries to hide evidence of 1) game/porn purchases, 2) online activities (deletes cache, uses encryption/passwords, etc.), and 3) logs on secretly, etc.; 4) defensive when confronted.
N = Nightmares. Dreams about his or her gaming/computer use.
S = Social dropouts - people who become more isolated by their computer use. This is seen when there is a consistent pattern of sacrificing real-life relationships to preserve virtual ones. Alternatively, seems to prefer living in virtual worlds more than their real one. These people become NEETs: ‘Not in Employment, Education, or Training.’

“If one or more of these questions are answered ‘yes’ AND the person is having interpersonal problems, he/she is at risk.”

NetFamilyNews: Following up, I asked Dr. Block, “Would you say the SIGNS mnemonic is for both ‘computer addiction’ and ‘Internet addiction’?”

Dr. Block: “Yes. I consider Internet addiction a subset of PCU (pathological computer use), and the mnemonic screens for PCU.”

NetFamilyNews: “Would it cover videogames and social-networking sites as well?”

Dr. Block: “Yes, I believe so.”

NetFamilyNews: “If kids are at risk for one of these types of addiction, what do you recommend a parent do? Consider taking the child to a clinical psychologist or family therapist?”

Dr. Block: “I really don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. I would suggest that parents try to handle the situation themselves, initially. If that fails, I would consult a professional. The problem is that most professionals do not know what to do and are unacquainted and unequipped to manage the issue. In my experience, PCU is underdiagnosed, hard to treat, comorbid with other disorders, and often subject to relapse. Treatments tend to be long-term and, frankly, expensive. And clinical results are less than stellar. That is the international experience, not just the US’s. It is a serious clinical problem, from many perspectives.

“An easier question is what NOT to do. DO NOT “cut the cord” unless in the context of an extended rehab-like setting. Cutting the child/adult off [from the computer, game, social-networking activity] can produce far worse outcomes (drug use, violence, depression, etc.). I differ in this from some practitioners who advocate for setting such firm limits. [See his commentary on this in the Rocky Mountain News or full-length analysis in "Related links" below.]

“Incidentally, probably the most effective treatment would be a ‘retreat’ or rehab-like setting for a minimum of 2 weeks. I think a full month is better [see this New York Times piece about a South Korean Internet addiction rehab camp]. But that is expensive and many would see it as overkill.”

NetFamilyNews: “What do you think of applying the word ‘addiction’ to these non-chemical activities, or can they have a chemical impact on the brain?”

Dr. Block: “There is the concept of ‘positive addictions’ - people like ‘workaholics,’ avid readers, or model railroaders. At times, PCU might be more productive and be considered in that way (like for people employed in the industry, i.e., video game programmers).

“More generally, I think there is a common pathway with substance abuse. The issues around craving and the later phases of withdrawal appear to be very similar.

“That said, I avoid the use of the word ‘addiction.’ It is just too explosive, political, and packed with other meanings. I prefer to think of this as a compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder, much like compulsive eating, gambling, pyromania, and trichotillomania.”

Related links

by Anne Collier
NetFamilyNews.org

Imposter profiles are one form of cyberbullying or online harassment certainly not restricted to youth. Tweens, teens, and adults create profiles that impersonate the people they want to harass, putting them in an embarrassing or defaming light. There are also simply fake profiles of imaginary people aimed at tricking the real people who “befriend” the imaginary people in the fake profiles, which is what happened in the Megan Meier case (see “Extreme cyberbullying: US case comes to light.” In a well-reported article, ConsumerAffairs.com describes a few actual imposter-profile cases and how hard it is to make them go away. Part of the problem is that, online, it’s much easier to set up a profile than it is to prove its harmful intent or impact. Some people who click the “Report Abuse” buttons in sites are actually being abusive - of the site as well as their peers. “MySpace includes a link at the bottom of every profile to report abuse, but many people misuse this to harass someone who has posted a legitimate profile,” ConsumerAffairs reports. The article includes no solutions to this growing problem because there simply are no known ones besides better, more civil behavior on everybody’s part and education aimed at that and at the fact that we’re not as anonymous online as we all think we are. ConsumerAffairs also goes into the law and how little it can do in these cases.

Kids today live in an interactive “Web 2.0″ world where they socialize, post photographs and videos and share common experiences with friends, friends of friends and, in some cases, strangers. Millions of kids are doing it every day and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be doing just fine. But that doesn’t mean that the social Web is a danger-free zone. There are things teens, parents, teachers and other caregivers need to think about to ensure that online socializing remains “smart socializing.”
Let’s start by dispelling one popular myth. Your kids don’t have all the answers when it comes to the use of technology. They may know more about how to operate a computer or a cell phone or put a page up on a social networking site, but just because some adults are a bit technologically challenged doesn’t mean that they have no place supervising kids’ use of technology. Adults have one thing that teens don’t have - life experience - which for most translates into wisdom. Adults know, for example, that things aren’t always what they appear to be. They know that while most people in this world are decent and caring, there are a few who will take advantage of others and you can find these people on the Internet just as you would in “the real world” (though, for teens there is no distinction between the Internet and “the real world.” The Internet is a big part of their world).

But there are other myths that we must also dispel. One is that Internet predators typically deceive their victims by lying about their age or their gender. While that is possible, it’s usually not the case. Research has shown that most adults who attempt to engage in a physical relationship with a minor do not grossly exaggerate their age. In most cases, the young person is aware that that person is an adult prior to the meeting.

To be sure, there are predators who would harm children. That’s one reason that it’s important for kids to be cautious when communicating with people they don’t know in person, especially if the conversation starts to be about sex or physical details. Fortunately most teens are pretty careful which is why there is a fairly small number of cases of teens who are physically harmed by these criminals. Still, one case is too many and if you hear about a case of someone using the Internet to groom or lure a minor into a sexual situation or if you find sexual images of children (child pornography), call local authorities and report it at CyberTipLine.com.

If you don’t get together with someone you meet online, they can’t physically harm you so your safest bet is to avoid meeting such people in the real world. If a teen does get together with someone it should be in a very public place and they should bring along a parent, a group of friends or maybe the football team and cheerleading squad. You never want to meet someone in person in a way that could make you vulnerable.

Another thing we know about threats to teens and children is that they don’t always come from adults and they’re often from someone they know. Kids can and sometimes do harm other kids. Threats often come from peers kids know from school or other real world situations. Whether it’s unwanted sexual advances, harassment or what’s now called “cyber bullying,” peer to peer threats are real and can be harmful.

If a teen or child is being bothered or harassed by anyone the best advice is to not respond to that person and tell someone. That should include a parent, guardian or teacher but, for teens, it can also include trusted friends. Sometimes kids can handle the situation on their own or in groups but at other times it requires adult intervention and, in serious cases, maybe even the police. Not all harm is physical. Cyber bullying can be emotionally devastating.

For adults - whether parents, teachers, administrators or authorities, it’s important to listen and provide support to a child or teen who is scared, worried or bothered by such contact but not to overreact or “punish the victim” by taking away Internet privileges or forcing them to avoid using social networking sites or other services. The fear of an adult overreacting is one of the reasons many teens give for not coming forward if they have a problem.

Parents also need to know that taking away a teen’s online privileges could backfire by prompting him or her to go into stealth mode by finding hidden ways to get online. If you take away a child’s online profile for a service, he or she can easily create another one or - worse - find a service that doesn’t even try to enforce basic safety rules. And if you ban teens from using a computer or attempt to filter what they can access, the young person can find another way to get online including friends’ computers or a cell phone. Modern phones have web browsers and some even have special software for getting onto social networks.
Which all leads to the fact that - regardless of what technology parents try to employ, the best filter is the one that runs in the young person’s brain - not on a computer.

Cell phones can also be used to bully and harass a young person. Text messages can sometimes be hurtful. And some phones have global positioning systems and software that allow teens to broadcast their location. Kids need to know how to use the privacy features these services offer to be sure they aren’t easily locatable by people they don’t trust.

Finally, Internet safety is a two-way street. Kids should be good online citizens and not harm, threaten or bully others for two reasons. First because it’s wrong and second because it can get them in trouble with authorities, parents and even other kids. Your thoughts? Please express them in our forum .