With Absolutely No Legal Basis To Do So, University Counsel Demands Yik Yak Take Down Posts, Turn Over User Info

from the cit.-'Acme-Messaging-Service-v.-Please,-We're-VERY-Upset' dept

Universities are still freaking out over the fact that some of their students are racists and assholes. But rather than deal with the inevitability that any decent-sized grouping of people will contain a percentage of both, they’ve opted to shoot the messenger: Yik Yak. Yik Yak provides a platform for anonymous postings that can only be seen by others within the same general location (1.5-10 miles). It also provides a voting system. With enough downvotes, a post is removed.

Despite these key ingredients, students and administrators are finding the app is to blame, rather than a portion of the people using it. So, they do ridiculous things like call for a ban of the app on campus — something almost completely unenforceable and ultimately futile.

In some cases, they opt for other unenforceable and futile efforts. The University of Rochester (NY) has discovered that local posts on Yik Yak contain a number of unsavory statements, including possible threats towards a student and racially-motivated activity. This has prompted a completely ridiculous response from the university’s legal team, which has “demanded” that Yik Yak do a number of things, including turn over a ton of information on users of the service.

UR senior counsel Richard S. Crummins last Thursday sent a letter to Yik Yak, a popular social networking app, making the demand for information, along with screenshots of the posts that UR wants to have identified…

Cummins’ [sic] letter demanded:

•Removal of certain offending posts that may remain on the Yik Yak application. And while there are apparently no such postings now on the site, this request would apply to any new ones concerning UR.

•The immediate disabling of the accounts of the users responsible for those posts.

•Any information in Yik Yak’s possession or control, including but not limited to names, email addresses, IP addresses, phone identifiers or other information that would help the university identify those users.

•Immediate and permanent removal of any and all use of the University of Rochester name from the Yik Yak application.

Yik Yak’s FAQ indicates that it won’t be doing anything Crummins has requested. It responds — like most online services — only to actual legal documents like court orders, subpoenas and warrants. What it doesn’t do (or at least is under no obligation to do) is delete posts, establish low-level prior restraint and divulge user information to PO’ed school administrators.

Sure, a lawyer may have written this, but it has no legal footing. Yik Yak could voluntarily do all of these things (or at least attempt to), but it is certainly not compelled to do so. Some of what’s being requested verges on the impossible — unless Yik Yak hires a team to police content solely for the University of Rochester, something it certainly won’t do because it would mean doing the same for every other offended entity that comes knocking.

And it should absolutely not turn over user information just because someone writes an angry letter. There are legal routes for this, and nearly all of them run through law enforcement. If the University of Rochester feels these threats are “legitimate” enough to engage its legal counsel in a round of pointless letter writing, why didn’t it skip this unnecessary step and just inform the authorities?

The answer to that question, it would appear, is wholly nonsensical:

[Dean of Students Matthew] Burns said that getting a court order requiring screenshots is a possibility, but UR’s focus is more one of trying to educate the campus community.

“What can we do as a community about this?” he said.

Doesn’t sound like much of a “community.” It doesn’t even sound like “education.” It sounds instead like administrators have already decided what’s best for the student body and that is asking a third party to turn over identifying data so it can move on with punishments for code of conduct violations. It doesn’t sound like the “student body” half of the community has been included in this discussion.

The university says it’s heard back from Yik Yak but has offered no further details than it’s “reviewing [Yik Yak’s] response.” This sounds like it got a solid “no” from the service, but hope springs eternal in those who believe they’re right, even when attempting to skirt legal requirements.

UR officials say that the offensive and threatening statements on this social media app are no longer posted…

Which isn’t really a concession on Yik Yak’s part as much as it is the voting system. A couple of lines buried at the bottom of the story may explain the vanishing of offending posts, as well as point out something actually useful being done about the offending posts — something that doesn’t involve firing warning shots across the First Amendment’s bow or demanding third party services acquiesce to demands usually made by law enforcement and backed by court orders.

Burns also said that students have formed a group, Take Back Yik Yak, that is trying to combat all the negative comments on the site with positive ones.

Fighting negative speech with more speech: a far more productive — and RESPECTFUL — effort. Fighting speech with speech doesn’t seem to be on the list of the administration’s options, despite its assertions about “education” and “community.” It would rather just shut things down, as is indicated by the dean’s “free speech, but…” statement.

Burns said that while UR is a strong believer in free speech, some of the postings constituted threats and were not protected speech.

I don’t think the administration is entirely clear on the extents of free speech. Sure, true threats aren’t protected by the First Amendment, but if the Yik Yak posts contained “true threats,” then why wasn’t law enforcement (which could obtain the user information the school is asking for) involved? One explanation is that the “threats” aren’t nearly as threatening as the university is making them out to be. Of course, now that it’s run out of options, the university may approach law enforcement to take this further, but its efforts so far haven’t involved anything more than misguided actions and idiotic demand letters. The students are winning this one — both those trying to stem the tide of offensive speech and those behaving poorly — while the university tries to wrestle the ethereal into submission using nothing more powerful than legal department letterhead.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: university of rochester, yik yak

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “With Absolutely No Legal Basis To Do So, University Counsel Demands Yik Yak Take Down Posts, Turn Over User Info”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Have they learned nothing from the Government? Just cover your ears and ignore the problem, people will either forget it or stop caring.

Also, racism in itself is not bad, shittalking about other races for no real reason is. There ARE race specific problems which will never get better unless people stop attacking those who point them out, which will only make them worse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Most universities these days seem to be focused on the business of making money off their students instead of teaching them anything.”

I completely agree. Why do you think universities try to constantly claim that educated people are more likely to get more pay than uneducated people. There is some truth to that to the extent that an education gives you more legal permission to do certain things (ie: to work in a lab in California you need a degree within a certain field or two years of out of state lab experience) but there is a problem with schools putting out these stats.

A: These stats are often based on surveys. Surveys are mostly bunk. Schools and universities call up businesses and whatnot and ask owners and employees what they make. Those that make very good money either lie or hang up. There is a bias in terms of who responds to these surveys and many business owners are willing to lie about how much they make trying to claim that they make much less than they really do or they are unwilling to take these surveys.

B: These stats assume that correlation equals causation. People who have the determination and ambition to get a college education are more likely to have the determination and ambition to become financially successful. Granted many (though not all) of the financially successful people that I know that own their own businesses have a college education but, often times, their success has little to do with their college education (ie: someone that owns restaurants but has a degree in psychology, etc…). They got their college education because they are ambitious and it is that underlying ambition that is responsible for their financial success. Schools try to make it out as though their education is what’s responsible.

C: Universities have an interest (a conflict of interest) in exaggerating the contribution of education towards one’s financial success. They have an interest in getting people to enroll in their schools so that these schools can get paid.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Why do you think universities try to constantly claim that educated people are more likely to get more pay than uneducated people.”

You’ve fallen into another piece of propaganda here: that if you haven’t gone to college you aren’t “educated”. That’s total BS. College is one tool that you can use to get an education, but there are many others (all of which are more cost-effective”. The unique benefit you get from college is a degree.

To quote Frank Zappa: “If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Techdirt is getting clickbait-y

The post title is somewhat disingenuous. Of course private parties can ask nearly anything of each other, and you address it buried in the post “Yik Yak could voluntarily do all of these things”. The legality of this request is not really relevant until Yik Yak calls the University’s bluff.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is getting clickbait-y

Actually, the University has legal basis to make the request but there is no legal basis for Yik Yak to comply. The title sets up the University’s request as illegal, which although disappointing, ill conceived, and likely futile, is perfectly legal and within their rights. Yik Yak has a history of complying with University requests.

A more accurate title would be “With Absolutely No Legal Basis To Expect Compliance, University Counsel Demands Yik Yak Take Down Posts, Turn Over User Info”

tqk (profile) says:

Re: McCarthyism

Whatever happened to Universities being bastions of free speech and centers for debate?

Add to that all that reverence for knowledge stuff; fact based reality & etc. Hypothetical: you walk up to another person on the street who you’ve never seen before who is chatting with another person. You tell them to shut up and show some ID. This is what UR just did to YY. This is their legal dept. talking for the administration. Sad.

Votre (profile) says:

They must think the way they operate their campus kangaroo courts and disciplinary “hearing” are the way things work everywher.

Hey university staff & faculty! A suggestion? Get a clue!

1. A hostilely worded statement doesn’t constitute a credible threat just because you say it does. That would be for a real court to decide.

2. Just because you don’t like something somebody said doesn’t make it illegal.

3. Students don’t waive their constitutional rights just because they’re attending your school. While this may come as a surprise, constitutional rights and legal protections are also fully in effect on your precious campuses. And all your PC mumbo-jumbo, mission statements, and unilaterally instituted codes of conduct don’t change that.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Community is the answer.

It seems like the Yik-Yik community already took care of the problem, the posts were down-voted. The University of Rochester should learn that lesson.

If hateful speech appears on Yik-Yik then they should energize the community, encouraging them to down-vote such posts. In other words, as Techdirt and others have said many times, MORE SPEECH.

If there is a real threat, then turn it over to the cops, and hope (possibly with futility) that they don’t overreact.

jeff nolan (profile) says:

helicopter nanny'ism

judging by the extent to which university administrators are reacting to speech, social behavior, indecent thoughts, and such, one would think they are operating a middle school. I have children who are not far off from university and I really don’t want them attending a school that treats them like children, or in the case of young men as predetermined sexual predators not worthy of due process rights. Who needs to fork over $60k a year to be told how to think and act?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...