Free Speech In A Digital World: From Censorship To Enlightenment
Jennifer B. Espinola
University of South Florida

New technology and social media formats have created some interesting modern twists for campus conduct offices to navigate. Obviously the recent suicides associated with cyber-bullying or public humiliation are calling attention to the use of webcams, Facebook, Twitter and other tools for mass distributing personal attacks or private matter (Hubbard, 2010). But there are even more obscure examples of online harassment that have universities spinning. For instance, “Second Life” is an online virtual world explored through a created character called an “avatar” which can socialize with other avatars, participate in individual and group activities, create and trade virtual property and services, or travel throughout the world (which is referred to as "the grid") (Rosedale, 2003). Within the startup site for Second Life, there is a category specifically for Education and Enterprise (2003) and it advertises that Universities around the country, including MIT and Notre Dame, are using Second Life for distance learning and social interaction for students. The potential is interesting, but the challenges are expected. An article from InsideHigherEd.com discusses conduct like rape, harassment, and other hate crimes within Second Life and how universities are dealing with the allegations (Bugeja, 2010). It will be interesting to see how it holds up in Court if a student is suspended for the virtual rape of another student in Second Life and sues the institution for First Amendment infringement. It seems that a code of conduct charge of harassment would have more footing because a student that is stalked or harassed online in a way that deprives him/her the ability to participate in the community and feel safe, gives the institution a legitimate interest in intervening the same way it would for a real-life on campus case of harassment. Robin Hulshizer argues that even case law concerning the intentional infliction of emotional distress and doctrines behind unprotected “fighting words” can be combined to offer principles for writing a legally-sound and effective model Student Code, which makes sanctionable conduct any verbal slur directed at an individual which is intended to harass, intimidate or humiliate and has the reasonably foreseeable effect of inflicting injury (1991).

Another example of the online interactions causing problems concerns the “www.Boredat____.com” websites (Kolowich, 2009). Jonathan Pappas, a student at Columbia University in 2006, developed the first site (www.BoredatButler.com) as a place for students to post their anonymous thoughts. He meant it to serve as an open forum with the anonymity allowing for truly open expression of ideas or musings about campus life. However, it turned into a Petri dish for racist slurs, personal attacks, rants, and harassment to the point where the creator shut the site down (2009). And this has happened with JuicyCampus.com as well, even though several other sites have been established to take their place. Attorneys caution against university censorship in online media by stating that “holding colleges responsible . . . for ‘stop[ping] the harassment of ... students on gossip sites in cyberspace’ sets up an impossible standard for colleges to meet” (Storch, 2009). However, when matters or incidents are brought to the attention of university officials, they are encouraged to investigate and proceed as prescribed by their procedures (Lipka, 2008).

As a Student Affairs practitioner, I am guided by case law against attempting to censor the content of student speech, regardless of its vulgar or vicious nature. The Supreme Court in Papish v. Board of Curators stated that "the mere dissemination of ideas - no matter how offensive to good taste - on a state university campus, may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency” (1973). Instead of censorship, higher learning institutions should use their most valuable tool - education. The more educators dialogue with students and create opportunities for them to interact, the less likely they will be to hide behind the electronic veil that shields their identity online where most of today’s hate speech and harassment can be found. Disturbing incidents are teachable moments for creating and moderating real and virtual forums to discuss the impact of such speech on the community. The key is facilitating students’ self-moderation. They must confront each other and decide together what the standards will be. Universities cannot protect students from hearing vile language and ideas, which are gaining prominence even in mainstream television, radio, and internet sites. So it is the job of institutions of higher learning to help the students acknowledge the message, critically think it through and challenge that which they disagree with in respectful and effective ways. We must encourage the voices of the rationale, caring and open-minded students whom will lead against the residual yet persistent bigots and fear-mongers of the world.

References

Hubbard, Jeremy (October 3, 2010). Fifth Gay Teen Suicide In Three Weeks Sparks Debate. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-teen-suicide-sparks-debate/story?id=11788128.

Rosedale, Philip (2003). What is Second Life? Retrieved from http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US.

Rosedale, Philip (2003). Education and Enterprise. Retrieved from http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US#Education_&_Enterprise.

Bugeja, Michael (February 25, 2010). Avatar Rape. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/02/25/bugeja.

Hulshizer, Robin (1991). Securing Freedom From Harassment Without Reducing Freedom of Speech: Doe v. University of Michigan, Iowa Law Review. 383, 397-400.

Kolowich, Steve (December 11, 2009). Vent No More. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/11/bored.

Storch, Joseph (September 17, 2009). In Loco Parentis, Post-Juicy Campus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/09/17/storch.

Lipka, Sara (March 7, 2008). The Digital Limits of ‘In Loco Parentis.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (26), p. A1. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/After-a-Suicide-Questions-/124803.

Papish v. Board of Curators. 410 U.S. 667, 670-71 (1973).