Gators Attack Juicy Campus

University of Florida Student Body President, Kevin Riley, and Chief Information Officer, Marc Hoit, recently issued this letter to the Florida Attorney General asking that the Florida Office of the Attorney General launch an investigation into Juicy Campus, the well-known gossip site. They did not elaborate on what kind of investigation they expect the state to launch.

I agree that JuicyCampus.com contains terribly defamatory posts about many people. However, if you are gullible enough to believe anything you read on JuicyCampus.com, your opinion cannot be all that influential. I also think that asking the government to launch an investigation because a few thin-skinned people have had their feelings hurt is asking for a level of governmental paternalism that used to (in my day) piss college students off. Kids these days…

The letter reads:

“[JuicyCampus] is used to anonymously post gossip regarding students. The anonymity, and the guarantee that information about a user’s identity will not be tracked, provided by JuicyCampus emboldens users to post false and damaging statements about others. These posts often amount to cyberbullying and raise issues of public welfare and safety.” (source)

Mr. Riley and Mr. Hoit, in their zeal to go crying to the teacher, seem to have neglected to do their homework. JuicyCampus.com is protected from liability for the actions of its users by 47 U.S.C. § 230, which was passed in order to ensure that online businesses would not have to grind to a halt while they police their users’ actions. The phone company is under no obligation to make sure you don’t use your phone to set up a contract killing, a drug deal, or to make sure you don’t say nasty things about your co-workers. Similarly, internet service providers should receive the same laissez-faire treatement, lest censorship become the bastard child of technology. See Robert Corn-Revere, New Technology and the First Amendment: Breaking The Cycle of Repression, 17 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 247, 264 (1994). Naturally, the internet =/= phone lines. However, unless the website in question actually assists in the production of the offending material, it is not liable. See, e.g., Craigslist Wins Section 230 Case. The much-misunderstood Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com decision did not change that rule, but rather reinforced it. In that case, Roommates.com provided pull-down menus that guided users to create potentially discriminatory housing postings. Therefore, they lost their Section 230 immunity. Craigslist is, like JuicyCampus, free-form and fully protected.

Despite their claim that JuicyCampus raises issues of public welfare and safety, the signatories of this foolish missive appear to be clueless as to how JuicyCampus has cooperated with the authorities in the past.

In situations where Juicy Campus posts have crossed the boundary from nuisance or harassment to outright threat, the site has cooperated with authorities. In December, Carlos Huerta, a senior at Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, posted a message on Juicy Campus alleging that he would start a shooting spree on campus. At the request of the police, Mr. Ivester traced the threat to Mr. Huerta, who was arrested and released without charges. (source)

I agree JuicyCampus most likely hurts a few people’s feelings. There may even be an anecdote or two that raises the complaints beyond mere alligator tears. However, the vast majority of the content on JuicyCampus is innocuous or just plain silly. It seems to me that the only purpose served by this letter was a desire to appear to care about a non-problem.

I have been to bathrooms at the University of Florida where I saw defamatory material written on the wall. No investigation was launched – at least not at the level of the state Attorney General - and nobody called for the building to be torn down. The logic of blaming the forum for the actions of the participants is as illogical as closing a public park because someone held up a defamatory sign.

Section 230 is an example of Congress getting an issue right — internet commerce must be allowed to grow, even if that growth causes a few stretch marks.

Kevin Grierson said:

I don’t think it’s the job of the law to limit the options of law-abiding citizens and businesses because of the potential harm to the Darwin-Award-winning segment of our society.

Similarly, it is not the job of the state to intervene in every example of hurt feelings – even if it is a widespread issue. The next time you take a flight, look at the immense hassle you have to go through. Flying in America is an experience that is a pain in the ass because we passed rules designed to affect the behavior of a few of the worst people in society. Then, we handed the rulebook to dumbest nitwits we could find. Do you really want the government passing rules and launching investigations that may wind up placing the same kind of restrictions on the greatest tool for mass communication ever invented? I sure don’t.

If a student feels aggrieved by the content on Juicy Campus, he or she has the right to file a private cause of action. If the speech rises to the level of a true threat, the police will get involved. Asking the government to launch an investigation into a public forum because of the actions of a minority of participants in that forum is an act of abject foolishness.

There are some areas where the government should never venture – including criminal investigations of activities involving free speech. Fortunately for us, I do not believe that Bill McCollum will take any action. Mr. McCollum, a die-hard Republican, has an excellent record when it comes to free speech issues. McCollum has tirelessly pursued child predators and human traffickers, but he has courageously resisted calls from social conservatives to investigate and prosecute mainstream pornography. McCollum understands the meaning of being a conservative, and is not likely to intervene in a situation that could be cured either through the marketplace of ideas or over-cured by government intervention.

I don’t mind Mr. Riley or Mr. Holt raising the alarm about Juicy Campus. They were well within their First Amendment rights to express their opinion, and to petition the government to take any steps they liked. They crossed the line by purporting to speak for the tens of thousands of students at the University of Florida. I called McCollum’s office, which confirmed that there has been exactly ONE complaint about Juicy Campus by University of Florida students — and that was launched by the student body president himself. Who were these two ass-hats speaking for but themselves?

I encourage Mr. Riley and Mr. Holt to do their homework before they try to start a government investigation into people saying naughty things about one another. I have always found the University of Florida to be a shockingly intellectually complacent institution (and yes, I am a Gator), but this is a new low. Had this been a less enlightened attorney general, their foolish letter very well could have caused real damage to free speech on the Internet.

This Might Explain Florida

Apparently the heat makes you stupid and more likely to be a criminal (if you’re white, anyhow). See Gene Expression, Colder climates favor civilization.

Man dies after taking 23 shots in 30 minutes

ABC News reports:

A Florida man died Tuesday after taking more than two dozen shots of cherry vodka within a half hour, according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office.

This seems like a bad way to die. Given that I rarely drink alcohol, it is not likely that I’ll go this way. But please, lord, if I do die this way, do not let my last drink be a cherry vodka.

Meanwhile, thousands of marijuana users smoked themselves to death this year by consuming the dangerous drug no marijuana user has ever smoked himself to death.

A House Divided?

Some genius in south Flori-duh thinks the best way to solve the State’s fiscal callousness is to pass a idiotic nonbinding, ineffective resolution declaring it “in the best interests of the citizens and residents [of North Lauderdale]” to divide Florida into two separate states - North Florida and South Florida. (Source).

I don’t know, maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. Divide the State in two -or better yet three (North, South, and Central)- with all the crazies, asshats, and arsonists  concentrated in the Northern and Southern portion of the State, while the remainder of us in the Central reap the benefits of continued exploitation of the tourism industry. It’s not bad fiscal policy (for Central Florida) and would certainly improve the quality of life for those of us who love living here but are constantly embarrassed because all the crazy shit seems to happen in Flori-duh.

I found out why there are so many songs about rainbows!

If this gives you wood
you might be a high school
principal from the panhandle

In Gillman v. Holmes County School District, a federal judge ruled today that a Florida panhandle school could not suppress student speech that promoted solidarity and support for gay classmates.

“Standing up to my school was really hard to do, but I’m so happy that I did because the First Amendment is a big deal to everyone,” said Heather Gillman, a junior at Ponce de Leon High School and the plaintiff in the case.

The Court issued an order that the school’s censorship must stop, and that the school was forbidden from committing any acts of retaliation. (source)

The case came about after Heather Gillman and other students approached the ACLU about an atmosphere in which students say they were routinely intimidated by school officials for things like writing “gay pride” on their arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. According to students, problems began in September of 2007 when a lesbian student tried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by other students because she is a lesbian.

During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today, Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that he believed rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make students unable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind. The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gay pride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many find controversial, such as the Confederate flag. (emphasis added)

I can’t believe it… Principal Davis found out! All these years, there have been secret porn messages hidden in rainbows! No WONDER there are so many songs about rainbows! Kermit the Frog is now busted as a homophile promoting the damn homosexual agenda!

Watch this if you dare — it has secret gay sex messages in it. But, if you wear tinfoil on your head while watching, you can keep them from penetrating your skull.

Oh, wow… I did some more research. This whole “rainbows and gay sex” theory totally explains THIS!

You guessed it… the principal is the ass hat of the day. People wonder why Flori-duh can’t seem to run an election, or that every freak in America seems to wind up here.. When our public school principals are this dumb, what hope do the kids have?

I BELIEVE tag hits speed bump (rejoice)

It looks like Flori-duh’s latest state-sponsored proselytizing might have “hit a roadblock” (as reported on CNN). The plate design did not make it into a bill sent to Governor Crist on Tuesday.

Opponents of the plate said approving it would result in a court challenge because it violated the separation of church and state and gave the appearance the state was endorsing a particular religious preference.

Gee, ya think?

Supporters countered that not approving it could also result in a lawsuit.

Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, a plate proponent, said the state had created a “public forum” by allowing a variety of license plate designs with different messages. Restricting speech in that forum was also unconstitutional, Storms said.

Rhonda Storms is probably one of the most insane people ever to take public office. She is absolutely Katherine-Harris-Crazy, a filthy hypocrite, and a traitor to the Constitution.

Crazy or not, she has half a point. The state should not restrict speech in public forums. However, Sen. Storms needs to read the whole First Amendment, not just the part she likes (at this particular moment). The First Amendment also requires a separation of church and state — and this license plate violates that sacred separation. Let’s remember that anyone who wants to express their belief can still buy a bumper sticker that says “I Believe,” and can send a check to the organization that sponsored the plate.

Storms’ statements drip with irony

It is funny to hear Rhonda Storms complain about censorship. Storms didn’t have so much respect for the Constitution when the issue was speech with which she disagreed. Storms successfully pushed through a ban on recognition of gay pride events in Hillsborough County, Florida. (source). She also succeeded in having a shelf of so-called “gay books” removed from Hillsborough County’s public libraries.

County Commissioner Rhonda Storms raised objections to a shelf of books featured in her local library in honor of gay pride month. Storms claims she spoke for her rural and suburban constituents when she proposed that the county ban “acknowledging, promoting or participating” in gay pride events.

“I do not want to have to explain to my [6-year-old] daughter what it means to be questioning one’s sexuality … or what a transgender person is, or what a bisexual is or what a gay or lesbian is,” said Storms. She added that the library shouldn’t be “used as bully pulpit to introduce those concepts to a child outside of their parents’ purview.” (source) (second source)

Funny how putting books in the library is turning it into a “bully pulpit,” but there is no problem with putting one particular set of superstitions on the state’s license tags.

If you desire to see state sponsored religion on license plates, have no fear. South Carolina is on the march.

I BELIEVE! (that Edward Bullard is an ass-hat)

State Rep. Ed Bullard (D-Miami) has decided to try and upstage Carey Baker in his quest to be the dumbest legislator in Florida (little do they know that Rhonda Storms has that title locked up).

Bullard proposed that Flori-duh become the first state in the union to produce a specialty license tag to explicitly promote a particular (pick your word) superstition/religion. (source)

When asked whether this should open the state of flori-duh’s license tags to all beliefs, Bullard said “no.”

Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he would probably oppose it. (source)

Why can’t these morons just buy a bumper sticker like everyone else?

Hat tip and love to Simple Justice.

“Hunt Club” swingers’ parties and freedom of association both under attack in Flori-duh

Meet The Hunt Club of Brevard

Today’s Central Florida news is all abuzz with stories of a salacious “sex club” operating in Melbourne, Florida. The Hunt Club of Brevard describes itself as follows:

The Hunt Club is a private, members only, on premise group dedicated to helping its members explore the alternative lifestyle in a safe, secure environment where they can be themselves along with others who share common interests. Think of it as a dinner party with a little extra. We are not a business, merely a group of people who want to make new friends and have parties. (source)

Enter the neighbors - and law enforcement

Operators Richard Spalding and Kirsi Page deny that anything illegal goes on during these parties. By all reports, the noise level is kept low enough to satisfy the lightest sleeper, everything occurs behind closed doors, and they go so far as to keep all parked cars off the street and behind a gate.

“What you see when you come to a party is a group of adults mingling, flirting, laughing and sometimes dancing. The parties are very quiet, to the point that you cannot hear any noise out on the street in front of our house,” Page stated. (source)

Nevertheless, the thought of a party where people were having non-missionary sex was just too much for a few of her neighbors in Melbourne’s Oak Grove Acres subdivision.

Prompted by complaints from neighbors, two undercover Melbourne police officers — one male, one female — posed as a couple, and toured the house in late-March, Police Chief Don Carey said.

No lawbreaking activities were noted, Carey said — “they were consenting adults doing stuff in private that wasn’t criminal” — and the police investigation was closed with no charges filed. (source)

I’d like to call for a round of applause for Chief Carey. Usually when the neighbors complain and cops get sent to one of these places, they just can’t resist the temptation to engage in circus-atmosphere raids with film crews in tow. The cops then throw down some ludicrous charges to justify the circus, a few city council members use it as a campaign stop, the swingers pay a bunch of attorneys fees, and they ultimately prevail. (examples)

Larry Groves was likely one of the complainers. Last Friday night, he was with a group of neighbors exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting the club’s activities.

One large sign displayed the message “The Hunt Club Not Wanted Here.”

Despite their efforts, Groves said more than 20 vehicles pulled into the driveway and parked in the backyard.

“Some of the cars left, and came back with their tags taken off. Some of them didn’t care,” he said.

Groves said he is worried about crime and sexual predators.

“This is a dead-end cul-de-sac. We don’t have any bylaws in the development here that prevents anything like that. It can happen in any neighborhood in Melbourne,” he said. “Whether they broke the law or not, the intent is not good for a quiet community. We’re trying to protect our investments and our lifestyle and our morality level.” (source)

Mr. Groves (the ass hat of the week, by the way) should have removed his head from his ass before speaking to the press. Crime and sexual predators? “Our” morality level? Lions, and tigers, and bears!

Florida is home to dozens of swingers clubs. Not one has been the subject of a sexual abuse allegation, let alone a conviction. (compare that record to Central Florida’s Catholic churches). With respect to “crime,” it seems that the Hunt Club doesn’t even want its guests to have a DUI, let alone commit crimes. See Hunt Club Etiquette.

I think that it is safe to say that either the newspaper mischaracterized Groves’ statements or he is a liar. The Hunt Club is a party, not a crystal meth lab or a gang hangout.

What really rubs me the wrong way is Groves’ claim that his neighbor’s parties impact his “lifestyle” and “morality level.” It seems that if he would mind his own business, his lifestyle would be just fine. As far as his “morality level” goes, if his morality is so fragile that it can not stand in opposition to that of the Hunt Clubbers, then his “morality” is false indeed.

A freedom of association issue

The Melbourne Police, despite their principled position that nothing illegal goes on at the Hunt Club parties, have not taken the swingers out of their crosshairs.

“It’s my opinion that the people there are operating a business out of their home. They’re violating the zoning in that area, because they’re not allowed to have customers in their home,” [Chief] Carey said. “It is a business. If they feel differently, they can challenge us in the courts.”

I think that Chief Carey has this one wrong, and if the Hunt Club challenges him in the courts, they should prevail. The Hunt Club is clearly not a business. It is a group of like-minded individuals gathering on a regular basis for a common purpose. That is called “freedom of association,” and we fought a Revolution to secure that right.

Whether Mr. Groves like it or not, the same First Amendment that protects Groves’ right to protest the existence and location of these parties gives the Hunt Club party participants the right to peaceably assemble — whether that assembly is to discuss the bible, make quilts, or to simply be around others who don’t mind having multiple sex partners. The Constitution doesn’t care why you are peaceably assembling — just that you are peaceably doing so.

Free speech and group association are inseparably intertwined, one being undeniably enhanced by the other. See NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). The Constitution not only protects the freedom of citizens to join together to discuss and further their common beliefs, but affirmatively demands it. Moreover, the right to associate for the advancement of beliefs is “an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.” Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1923).

The Hunt Club’s members believe that polyamorous relationships are the way to go — and they get together to further that belief. They have a right to assemble for this lawful purpose. Mr. Groves has a right to protest. No government official has the right to get in the way of either one. Perhaps the club’s website puts it best:

I have to ask myself what about the groups that have bible study in their homes and take donations or the chamber groups that have network meetings at their homes and also take in donations… is the chief going after them??? (source)

No, no he isn’t.

Flori-duh legislator gets a bit testy

If you spend much time south of the Mason-Dixon line, you’ll see lots of things that make you wonder why we fought a war to keep this part of the country (source). Two of those things are inbred judges who insist on putting Ten Commandments displays in front of courthouses, and morons who think that it is cool to hang a pair of “Truck Nutz” from the back of their pickup trucks.

For those of you who live in places where the average person can read, write, and use indoor plumbing, I assure you — I am not making this up. People actually do attach these things to their vehicles here. I suppose that they could achieve the same thing by simply wearing a T-Shirt that says “I have deep feelings of sexual inadequacy,” but in America, you get to express your thoughts pretty much any way you please.

In a free society, you can wear that T-Shirt, buy a Hummer, hang “Truck Nutz” from your car, put up a Confederate flag, or pick any other way you like to express the sentiment “I’m a moron and I’m proud of it.”

ALL YOUR
TRUCK BALLS
ARE BELONG TO US!

Florida State Senator, Carey Baker (pictured right), didn’t get the memo. Shocking… a Florida Republican never heard of the First Amendment! He wants to take one of those ways to express the “I’m inbred and proud” sentiment away from Floridians. Baker sponsored an amendment to a highway safety bill (SB 1992) that would provide for a $60 fine for display of the disturbingly popular truck balls.

Baker’s colleague, Jim King (R-Jacksonville) claims that he, himself, sported a pair of truck nutz from his vehicle until his wife put the kaibosh on them. (source).

The Miami Herald reported that King was against the measure:

The measure met with resistance from Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican, who called them “a statement of truckyness”. (source)

On the other hand, the Tampa Tribune made it seem like King supported the measure — or maybe he just supports morality-based legislation in general.

“I don’t think this is frivolous. It’s someone making a determination that they thought it was either obscene or vulgar or whatever, and therein lies the problem.” (source)

At least Steve Geller (D-Cooper City) gave us some hope that it is not strictly required that all Florida legislators be completely brain dead.

It’s shocking we would be telling people that have metallic testicles on the bottom of their bumpers, ‘Guess what? We’ve now determined it’s obscene.’ There’s gotta be better things for us to be debating,” said Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller of Cooper City. (source)

So, if you need any more proof that Flori-duh is, indeed, the dumbest state in the nation, here it is. Not only do we hang fake balls from our vehicles, but our legislature spends time debating whether it should be outlawed.

Yeeeee hawwww!

Dumpster Diving Leads to VARA Suit

Art dealer or
VARA Scofflaw?

Here’s an interesting one, found at On Point News.

It isn’t very often that you see a VARA suit, but we have one going on in the Middle District of Florida. Artist Robert Rauschenberg is suing artist Robert Fontaine for selling works of art that bear certificates of authenticity attesting to the fact that Rauschenberg created them. Complaint.

But Fontaine’s attorney claims he found the proof sheets in a pile of junk outside Rauschenberg’s home on Captiva Island, Fla. “It appears Rauschenberg threw this stuff away,” Yale T. Freeman told USA Today.

Note the strange fact pattern here: Fontaine did not take Rauschenberg’s stuff from the trash and put his own name on it. Fontaine took Rauschenberg’s trash and then sold it as “a genuine Rauschenberg work.”

We don’t see many VARA suits because the Act is, for the most part, useless. VARA stands for “Visual Artists Rights Act,” and the act is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 106A. It only applies to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photos that are produced for exhibition, and even then, only if they are produced as a single work, or in limited runs of 200 or fewer copies — and those copies must be signed by the artist.

The statute affords the following rights to this very limited universe of works:

(a)Rights of Attribution and Integrity.— Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art—

(1) shall have the right—

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right—

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

It sounds like Mr. Rauschenberg is seeking to enforce his rights under subsection (a)(1)(B). The question comes down to did he create the visual work that Mr. Fontaine sold?

Maybe… first the court will need to determine whether Rauschenberg actually created the proof sheets that Fontaine allegedly picked from his trash. That should be relatively simple. If they are forged or were drawn by someone else, Rauschenberg probably wins.

Don’t take art
from it either

However, I don’t think that the case is that simple. The court should then decide whether these proof sheets are “works” that Fontaine can truthfully attribute to Rauschenberg. Is a discarded “proof sheet” a “work of visual art?” I would imagine that if the Court reads the statute in an unsophisticated and mechanical way, Rauschenberg will lose (provided that Fontaine can prove that Rauschenberg created the proofs).

On the other hand, Rauschenberg’s could raise the claim that the proof sheets are not “works,” but merely byproducts of the creative process, thus Fontaine’s claim that these “works” are “genuine Rauschenbergs” would be false. Additionally, VARA allows the artist to prevent the use of his name on works created by others, including distorted versions of the author’s original work. See Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, 459 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2006). Therefore, even if these are “genuine,” they are likely “distorted versions,” since Rauschenberg certainly did not intend for them to be displayed the way that Fontaine displayed them.

If the court applies VARA properly, it will find that (at least for VARA purposes) a “work” is not a “work” until the creating artist says it is a “work.” Thus, you can not take something that an artist created during the creative process, and then discarded, and say it is an authentic work of that artist. Even then, if an artist discards a copy of a work that he finds to be dissatisfying, he has a negative right of attribution that the Court should recognize and support.

Given the complete dearth of cases interpreting VARA, I hope that this doesn’t get settled out of court.