Dangerous Court Ruling Says Colleges May Be Required To Block Access To Certain Websites

from the free-speech? dept

Over the past few years, there have been a number of debates and legal fights concerning questions around Title IX and due process. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is supposed to protect people in educational settings from sex discrimination. It has been interpreted in some questionable ways, lately, with regards to the due process of anyone accused. But, now it's also impacting some other areas as well. The folks at FIRE highlight a fairly horrific appeals court ruling in the 4th Circuit, overturning a lower court ruling (that had dismissed the case), saying that a university might be required to ban access to certain websites under Title IX.

The case was filed against the University of Mary Washington, claiming Title IX violations from some students/student groups. While the court leaves some of the claims dismissed, it reinstates a specific Title IX claim that is quite worrying. As FIRE's Samantha Harris explains first the background of the case:

The case, Feminist Majority Foundation v. University of Mary Washington, stems from a series of events that roiled UMW’s campus back in 2015. At the time, members of the UMW student group Feminists United on Campus (a local affiliate of Feminist Majority Foundation) were speaking out about several issues on campus, including the student senate’s decision to authorize fraternities as well as a bawdy rugby chant that several members of UMW’s men’s rugby team were recorded singing at an off-campus party. Following their advocacy, FUC members found themselves the targets of online hostility, particularly on a now-defunct platform called Yik Yak that allowed users within a certain geographic radius to post anonymous messages. FUC complained about this repeatedly to the UMW administration, and after they found UMW’s response to their complaints to be lacking, they first filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and then, ultimately, a federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that UMW discriminated against the plaintiffs, in violation of Title IX, by responding with deliberate indifference to their claims of peer harassment, and by allowing UMW students to retaliate against the plaintiffs for filing an OCR complaint. The suit also alleges that former UMW president Richard Hurley retaliated against the plaintiffs by publicly defending the university against their allegations of discrimination.

The lower court dismissed the case, but here the 4th Circuit brings back a large component of it in a very troubling manner. Basically, by saying that since the University provided internet access to sites where harassing content could be found (on the third party app Yik Yak), the University was potentially liable:

The Complaint alleges that much of the harassment occurred through Yik Yak. Although that harassment was communicated through cyberspace, the Complaint shows that UMW had substantial control over the context of the harassment because it actually transpired on campus. Specifically, due to Yik Yak’s location-based feature, the harassing and threatening messages originated on or within the immediate vicinity of the UMW campus. In addition, some of the offending Yaks were posted using the University’s wireless network, and the harassers necessarily created those Yaks on campus. Moreover, the harassment concerned events occurring on campus and specifically targeted UMW students....

Furthermore, to the extent the sexual harassment was communicated through UMW’s wireless network, the Complaint alleges that the University could have disabled access to Yik Yak campuswide. The Complaint also alleges that the University could have sought to identify those students using UMW’s network to harass and threaten Feminists United members. If the University had pinpointed the harassers, it could then have circumscribed their use of UMW’s network. Indeed, it is widely known that a university can control activities that occur on its own network. A university may, for example, bar a student caught downloading music or movies in violation of copyright laws from accessing its network.

Ah, there's that copyright creep situation again. It's annoying when the average clueless joe says something along the lines of "well, if you can kick people offline for copyright, why not x..." but having a Federal Appeals Court Judge say it is really frustrating.

But think about what the court is saying here. Because this happened via the university's network (even on an app totally unrelated and out of the control of the university), the university can still be blamed for not blocking it. That's... crazy. That means that a university would need to proactively police the entire internet to stop anyone from saying anything harassing -- and if they come across anything or are told of anything, they'd be required to block access to that site or app entirely for all students. How is that reasonable?

The court also rejects the fact that the university had no way of figuring out who posted the "offending Yaks." Yik Yak (which went out of business last year) was always entirely anonymous. But the court doesn't seem to care:

To the extent the University contends it was unable to control the harassers because the offending Yaks were anonymous, we readily reject that proposition. The Complaint alleges that the University never sought to identify the students who posted the offending messages on Yik Yak, even though some of those messages were facilitated by (i.e., posted through the use of) UMW’s network. Nor did the University ever ask Yik Yak to identify those users who had harassed and threatened UMW students. The University cannot escape liability based on facially anonymous posts when, according to the Complaint, UMW never sought to discern whether it could identify the harassers.

The dissenting opinion in the ruling clearly sees the problematic impact of all of this:

Make no mistake, the majority’s novel and unsupported decision will have a profound effect, particularly on institutions of higher education, until the Supreme Court reaffirms that Davis means what it says. Institutions, like the University, will be compelled to venture into an ethereal world of non-university forums at great cost and significant liability, in order to avoid the Catch-22 Title IX liability the majority now proclaims. The University should not hesitate to seek further review.

The case is far from over (and FIRE also notes that there's a separate issue of whether or not the content was even harassing in the first place, that hasn't even been considered yet). But the implications here are huge and really damaging.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th circuit, blocking, censorship, harassment, title ix, websites
Companies: university of mary washington, yik yak


Reader Comments

The First Word

justice or Social Justice

Does the Feminist Majority Foundation claim that they represent a majority of feminists or that feminists are a majority of the population? Is either provable or is it like Reagan's silent majority? A wish.

The claim that UMW could have controlled speech, and controlled Yik Yak because they didn't try to control speech seems specious at best. If they had tried and found they couldn't, would they also be liable? They might be able to control their networks, but a platform not owned or controlled by them? Maybe they could have banned Yik Yak, but can they ban all social media, and get away with it?

Controlling networks, not platforms, for speech related issues seems like a gigantic slippery slope. If they control for one group then an opposing group might sue. If they control for the second group then the first group might sue. If they get into the business of controlling speech they are just setting themselves up to be sued and any reasonable entity would decide that getting sued is an appropriate reason to not take some action, especially when that activity is constitutionally protected.

In a separate but related issue, it now appears that there is a push for claiming that 'staring at someone is akin to rape'. There needs to be some backlash at the SJW's for their insistance that their justice is more just than others justice, even if constitutionally protected activities like due process are denied.

—Anonymous Anonymous Coward

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2018 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: justice or Social Justice

    Just how do you know what I think it says

    You linked to a blog post about it and described it as "claiming that 'staring at someone is akin to rape'" so, uh, I took that to be what you think it claims.

    All I wanted to point out was that in your zeal to attack "SJWs" you managed to get yourself turned around completely backwards on what a study you were attacking actually said. Apparently that doesn't bother you, so, fine.

    I offer you the opportunity to give them whatever nomenclature you think is appropriate, but for me, without due process, nothing happened.

    The report was commissioned by Uber for the purposes of developing a taxonomy so they can categorize customer complaints about driver behavior, and track data on those complaints. Nothing else, and certainly nothing to do with the force of law or Title IX compliance. So... what exactly is the due process you feel is being neglected there?

    See, this is why you shouldn't go on long rants about something you haven't read.


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.