Duke University Tries To Shut Down Lacrosse Players' Blog

from the apparently-streisand-doesn't-play-lacrosse dept

Tue, Apr 15th 2008 9:16am — Mike Masnick

It would appear that officials at Duke aren't particularly familiar with The Streisand Effect. As you may have heard, a few years back there was a case that got a ton of media attention, with some Duke lacrosse players being accused of rape. Eventually, after fanning the flames in the media, prosecutors had to drop the case for lack of any actual evidence -- and the prosecutor who led the charge was disbarred. The lacrosse players are striking back, suing the University and the city of Durham. As the case moves forward, they've put up their own blog, at DukeLawsuit.com. However, the university and the city aren't too happy about it and have tried to get the court to force the blog offline -- which, of course, is only drawing a lot more attention to it.

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: blog, duke, lacrosse players, streisand effect, takedown

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BTR1701, 15 Apr 2008 @ 10:32am

Gag Orders
This isn't exactly unheard of. Quite often in high-profile cases like this, the judge will issue a gag order prohibiting the parties from talking with the media while the case is ongoing. Such orders have been challenged in the past and found not to violate the 1st Amendment.

It certainly wouldn't be a stretch for a judge to hold that posting information to a web site is nothing but an end-run around a legitimate gag order and shut it down.

However, in this case it doesn't appear that any gag order has been issued so there's nothing for the plaintiffs to violate. Here it seems like the defendants just want the web site silenced because they don't like it, which isn't really a valid legal basis for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 15 Apr 2008 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: Gag Orders
  Here it seems like the defendants just want the web site silenced because they don't like it, which isn't really a valid legal basis for anything.
  It has never stopped anyone from suing before...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
illegalprelude, 15 Apr 2008 @ 11:19am

Well, what your saying is only true if they were talking about the case. If the blog is about how their feeling about it and how their dealing with the case, then their not giving away information about the case and its still fair game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2008 @ 1:30pm

Without a gag order this lawsuit will be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch, 15 Apr 2008 @ 2:12pm

Gag orders...
...are to protect individuals, such as Britney's kids during her divorce, or to keep from polluting a jury pool in a criminal case. They do not generally take place in civil cases and when they do, they are generally opened at a later date.

If the University were sued for something it said it didn't do, a gag order would be appropriate until the facts were decided, to protect the reputation of the University in the event that they were vindicated.

In this case, the facts are proven (the guys were wrongfully arrested and their University did not stick up for them.), only the legality of those actions are being debated, so a gag order is neither neccesary or appropriate.

The University wants to run from the bad publicity and they want the courts to provide them with a tent until the downpour stops, but the court system is not designed to protect you from a backlach of your own admitted actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check, 15 Apr 2008 @ 2:16pm

Duke = meh
First, my opinion - some of these guys are guilty. No one in this case is completely innocent and to think differently is completely absurd.

Now, these guys should, most definitely, be ticked off - the case was handled almost as bad as the OJ case and we all know HE was guilty...

But enough of my thoughts...focusing on the issue at hand - these guys have all the right to post what they want. HOWEVER, they need to be careful not to committ libel based on their blogging.

In either case, I dont see this ending well for EITHER the university of the lacrosse players - plenty of cases to pick from in which blogging (in a fashion like the lacrosse players are doing) has backfired. The players are just going to end up hurting themselves and the university.

Its a lose-lose situation for all.

For once, wont somebody think of the children!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 2:01am
  
  Re: Duke = meh
  First, my opinion - some of these guys are guilty.
  Of what? Where's your evidence?
  
  No one in this case is completely innocent and to think differently is completely absurd.
  For you to proclaim them guilty after a court examination of the evidence found otherwise is what's really absurd.
  
  HOWEVER, they need to be careful not to committ libel based on their blogging.
  
  Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
  
  In either case, I dont see this ending well for EITHER the university of the lacrosse players - plenty of cases to pick from in which blogging (in a fashion like the lacrosse players are doing) has backfired. The players are just going to end up hurting themselves and the university.
  
  So, how long have you worked for the university?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anon2, 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:24am
  
  Re: Duke = meh
  The state atty general stated that the accused were "innocent". Two of the three had documentary evidence (ATM photos, cab receipts) showing they were not there at the time of the alleged acts.
  
  The accuser was (and probably is) profoundly mentally disturbed.
  
  To assert that "some of these guys are guilty" demonstrates an interesting approach to truth and reality---unfortunately one shared by many.
  
  Anon2.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Halkides, 14 Nov 2009 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re: Duke = meh
  If the laws of chemistry and physics work in Durham the same way they work in the rest of the planet, there is zero chance that the three accused players had sex with the accuser. No DNA was found, even though the alleged victim was in police custody less than an hour after the party. One of the players was photographed by a security camera a mile away, and another had his cell phone records triangulated to show that he was not at the house at the time the rape could have occurred, either. The three accused players were declared INNOCENT by the attorney general of North Carolina. The knavery of Nifong and the duplicity of the DPD are what should have shocked the conscience of the nation, not an ill-considered stripper party.
  
  Chris
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2008 @ 4:52am

the blog just looks like a venue for posting public information. it has the court motions/lawsuits pertaining to the situation. it has transcripts of press confrences and public statements....

my only question is "is the everything" or just stuff to make the lacross players look good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobbknight, 16 Apr 2008 @ 10:26am

Guilty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobbknight, 16 Apr 2008 @ 10:42am

Guilty?
The only thing The boys from the Duke Lacrosse team are guilty of, is "Affirmative Action". In that they hired a lying black crack whore for one of the strippers.
Because Mike Nifong wanted to get re-elected, he lied and hid the truth about the whole thing.
The administration of Duke University, because the so called victim was black and the boys white, they let them to the jackals. You see the lairs and cheats are now in charge of the school system in America today.

The top law enforcement for the state the state attorney general came out and proclaimed them to be innocent of all the charges.

These boys deserve every nickel that can be bleed from Duke and Nifong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 16 Apr 2008 @ 2:23pm

Duke is just
This is from from the blog-Durham in Wonderland-http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
Duke acknowledges that the material on the website either quotes or closely paraphrases the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Duke also concedes that the material thus falls within the safe harbor provided by the local rules for attorney comments that convey information in a public record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 16 Apr 2008 @ 2:25pm

should have read
Duke is just whistling in the wind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]