Supporters of the satirical SUCOLitis blog’s right to free speech say the university has successfully set a precedent for limiting students’ First Amendment rights by calling unwanted speech harassment.

After a student filed a complaint accusing the blog of harassment, law school members expressed heavy criticism and launched a formal investigation into SUCOLitis, a WordPress blog poking fun at people and institutions within the Syracuse University College of Law. The blog went private Wednesday afternoon, after hitting more than 12,000 views.

The creators of the blog have not come forward, and the exact reason for the blog’s privacy is still unknown. But its privacy raises questions as to whether the law school and SU’s Office of Judicial Affairs will continue their investigation into the blog and Len Audaer, a second-year law student, who is the only student suspected of writing it.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has been following the case closely and criticized the law school for limiting students’ expression.

‘It looks like Syracuse has achieved the chilling effect on speech that some have been looking for,’ said Adam Kissel, vice president of programs at the foundation. ‘Syracuse is teaching students that they can shut down expression they don’t like, even though it is protected, just by filing a harassment complaint. This is a sad day for students’ rights at Syracuse.’

But many critics of the blog claim it did demonstrate harassment and could have been harmful to students’ well-being, especially in light of the damage online pranks have had at other schools like Rutgers University, where a male student committed suicide after his roommate posted live online footage of that student in a sexual act with another man.

Gregory Germain, an associate professor of law, is leading the school’s investigation into the blog’s suspected writer, Audaer, after a first-year student filed a harassment complaint. Germain has said the blog is not only offensive but also potentially libelous. He needs neither to prove harassment nor libel to take action against Audaer, as the university is a private institution that does not need to uphold the First Amendment.

The blog had a disclaimer saying it was satirical and all the information was untrue. But posts included fake names as well as real names of students, many of whom had no idea their names were online or that the blog existed.

Germain said he has no reaction to and knew nothing about the blog going private, in an e-mail. He did not say whether its removal would affect the investigation into the blog or Audaer.

Audaer said he has not heard from the school about the investigation since his meeting with Germain on Oct. 18. Audaer neither denies nor confirms that he is the writer of the blog. He said for whatever reason the blog was removed, he hopes it ends the investigation.

‘There are people in this who want me to be a pioneer,’ Audaer said. ‘But I never wanted this to be a national news story. I also didn’t want the school to look bad. I just want this to stop.’

But Audaer said he feels the law school has dug its feet in and now wants to hold someone accountable for the blog. He said the investigation has strained his relationship with professors and administrators at the school.

‘It has put a real barrier between me and my school,’ Audaer said.

He also wonders why the university has not stepped in with an official stance, he said. Members of the university’s administration have kept out of the public discussion about the blog. If Judicial Affairs becomes formally involved, the case will become a university matter just outside the law school’s jurisdiction.

Audaer has been talking with a lawyer about the case, he said. If the law school decides to continue the investigation, he may bring a separate complaint against the school’s handling of his case to Judicial Affairs. Audaer said the school violated due process outlined in its own policies by withholding the evidence against him.

In the meeting with Germain, he told Audaer about the harassment complaint and that the student who filed it would be major evidence in the case. Audaer still does not know what this important piece of evidence against him is, he said.

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and professor of communications law and journalism, said Audaer might have a case against the school for violation of due process.

In this case, the blog does not demonstrate harassment, Gutterman said.

‘Harassment has a specific legal definition,’ Gutterman said, which includes persistent and threatening behavior. ‘A single reference on a blog is not harassment.’

Removal of the blog from public viewing demonstrates self-censorship, Gutterman said. If the creators of SUCOLitis found it necessary to censor themselves after being criticized by an institution at SU, other students will probably feel the need to limit their public expression, too, he said.

‘As far as setting a precedent, it does,’ Gutterman said. ‘If you offend people, you’re going to get in trouble.’

rastrum@syr.edu

 

Published on October 24, 2010 at 12:00 pm