MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Feminist Group Loses Fight to Declare Yik Yak App a Civil-Rights Violation

Court rejects Title IX complaint against University of Mary Washington over failure to ban the social-media platform from its campus

A federal court in Virginia shot down one of the sadder displays of anti-speech authoritarianism in recent memory, a demand that the social-media app Yik Yak be declared a civil-rights violation on college campuses.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia this week dismissed a lawsuit filed against the University of Mary Washington (UMW) by a coalition led by the Feminist Majority Foundation. The suit contended that UMW allowing Yik Yak on campus constituted a violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents sex discrimination at educational institutions receive federal funding.

"As social media has proliferated, cyberbullying has become a national problem," and "solutions are not easy or obvious to anyone," the court noted. "In seeking solutions, however, schools cannot ignore other rights vital to this country, such as the right to free speech."

The whole debacle stems from Yik Yak users at UMW harassing members of a campus feminist group (and branch of the Feminist Majority Foundation) in 2015. Yik Yak is now defunct, but at the time it was a popular app on college campuses, allowing users within a certain distance to broadcast their thoughts anonymously in a Twitter-like fashion. The students complained to UMW administrators, who told them they could not ban the app on campus because of free-speech concerns.

That's when Feminist Majority Foundation and others asked the Department of Education to intervene. In an administrative complaint against UMW, the groups charged colleges with violating students' civil rights "by failing to adequately address the sexually hostile environment created by persistent online harassment and threats" on Yik Yak—a private platform students could download independently on their own phones or devices.

Schools exerted no control over who downloaded the app or what they posted on it. The feminist groups proposed schools get around this by installing software that would block Yik Yak on school computer networks, a "solution" that would both fail on technological grounds (anyone using their phone's network or non-school wifi could still access the app) and First Amendment ones.

Feminist Majority Foundation also filed a civil lawsuit against the school, alleging violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On Tuesday, the court explained its reasons for granting its motion to dismiss the suit.

"To establish a Title IX claim, a plaintiff must show that a [school] acted with deliberate indifference to known acts of sexual harassment so severe, pervasive, and offensive that the harassment deprived the plaintiff of access to educational opportunities or benefits," explains the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decision. It's a standard that focuses on action or inaction by the school, not third parties, and is limited to situations in which the school has substantial jurisdiction "over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs."

In this case, "the Title IX discrimination claim fails because the harassment took place in a context over which UMW had limited, if any, control—anonymous postings on Yik Yak," the court decided.

And in realms where it did have control—like holding student assemblies and having a university police officer investigate a specific threat—it took swift action. "While UMW did not take the specific action requested by the plaintiffs, Title IX does not require funding recipients to meet the particular remedial demands of its students," especially when those demands may expose a school to liability under the First Amendment," the court ruled.

It also noted that some of the campus feminists members received individual threats of physical and sexual violence, calling them out by name and revealing their addresses. In some cases, legitimate criminal charges may have been warranted. But instead of going after harassers directly, the aggrieved students and Feminist Majority Foundation lashed out at the school and the social-media platform.

While condemning the "thuggery" of student harassers on Yik Yak, law blogger Eugene Volokh points out that "a public university can't block otherwise available student access to an entire privately operated communication platform, just because a few students are using that platform in ways that are rude, harmful to public debate, or even outright criminal. Such a block is a classic prior restraint — here, an attempt to categorically block all use of a communications mechanism in order to prevent some users' misuse."

Photo Credit: Yik Yak/Facebook

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Feminist Majority Foundation

    What're they implying with this name?

  • esteve7||

    Fuck Off, Slavers.

    Only in their mind that an app you use and they can choose not to = violating my rights.

    When these lunatics talk about rights, they mean something completely different then the standard definition. Same goes with words like "justice", "racism", "equality", etc. Their whole schtick is a bait and switch tactic.

  • Rat on a train||

    rights = entitlements

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Only certain rights which they chose to acknowledge.

    2A would not entitle you to a firearm in their eyes.

  • Tankboy||

    I wish 2A entitled me to a firearm, then I'd be able to get one with Gun Stamps - like Food Stamps. 2A only defines my right to bear arms, I have the right to go buy (or, I guess, make) a firearm. No entitlement here.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The feminist groups proposed schools get around this by installing software that would block Yik Yak on school computer networks, a "solution" that would both fail on technological grounds (anyone using their phone's network or non-school wifi could still access the app) and First Amendment ones.

    My guess is, even the people filing the suit knew this, and didn't care. Which is the very thing that should scare the crap out of people. A technologically non-viable law can still have teeth. Very scary teeth.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    I'm sure they didn't but they could've been hit with FRCP Rule 11(b) Sanctions. For bringing a frivolous suit.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    I'm sure they didn't but they could've been hit with FRCP Rule 11(b) Sanctions. For bringing a frivolous suit.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    While condemning the "thuggery" of student harassers on Yik Yak, law blogger Eugene Volokh points out that "a public university can't block otherwise available student access to an entire privately operated communication platform, just because a few students are using that platform in ways that are rude, harmful to public debate, or even outright criminal. Such a block is a classic prior restraint — here, an attempt to categorically block all use of a communications mechanism in order to prevent some users' misuse."

    Do you know who else equivocated?

  • Rubbish!||

    Doesn't matter because That's Not Funny

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Howard Zinn?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Mattress girl?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Marie Antoinette?

  • MarkLastname||

    Marcus Aurelius?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    "As social media has proliferated, cyberbullying has become a national problem," and "solutions are not easy or obvious to anyone," the court noted. "In seeking solutions, however, schools cannot ignore other rights vital to this country, such as the right to free speech."

    Hate speech isn't free speech, stupid courts full of MISOGYNISTIC RICH WHITE MEN.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    "Some yaks included a member's location on campus so that people could confront her in person"

    Heh, is that what pisses them off? That someone other than a leftist would dare to use this tactic?

  • GILMORE™||

    "Someone, somewhere is saying something less than congratulatory about me; rather than ignore this, it is an opportunity for me to demand that institutions use their power on my behalf, and ban/punish/ostracize anyone who thinks differently"

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Feminist Group Loses Fight to Declare Yik Yak App a Civil-Rights Violation
    Court rejects Title IX complaint against University of Mary Washington over failure to ban the social-media platform from its campus

    This is a terrible decision.
    Since when does free speech exist in America's higher institutions of re-education camps?

  • Sevo||

    "As social media has proliferated, cyberbullying has become a national problem,"

    I smell mission-creep.

  • Agammamon||

    ban the social-media platform from its campus

    But it was never on campus - it was on people's phones. And those are private areas that don't belong to the university.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online