Too Juicy To Be True?

As more and more Web sites such as JuicyCampus.com, a gossip site akin to Harvard’s Gossip Geek, provide environments that facilitate unverified user-content (“C’mon.  Give us the juice. Posts are totally, 100% anonymous,” reads the site), the need to be a discerning consumer of the Internet becomes more prominent. Wikipedia-wary professors warning against unaccountable, authorless sources preach this message time and time again. While the best advice to give a prospective Internet user is to take everything with a grain of salt, the reality of concrete injury from libelous and defamatory web content also needs to be addressed.
Surely, the wonders of the Internet era have given our modern world an unprecedented level of information and exchange. But in addition to our unfettered access to news, government reports, and academic information, there exists an ocean of largely unaccountable, user-generated content—so much so that users must always keep in mind the likelihood of false or inaccurate information. This caution should be taken to heart at all times, not only by students, but by prospective employers and all Internet consumers as well. To not understand this risk is to be an irresponsible consumer of information.
While the burden of responsible consumption falls upon those who surf the World Wide Web, our legal system must also shift to cope with the reputational harm caused by Internet libel. Take for example JuicyCampus.com whose “Most Discussed” section hosts the conversation, “Bitch vs. Cunt: You Decide!” This thread has over 100 replies vilifying two students at Tulane University.  The starting post explicitly gives the full names of both girls and is indisputably defamatory.
Although such speech in print or by a website publisher would usually warrant a lawsuit, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants immunity from liability arising from content posted by users. Of course, Web sites do not exercise full control over what content gets posted. When reputable websites providing forums for conversations responding to well-researched articles, this law seems reasonable.  
But in cases where user-content forms the primary thrust of the Web site, the publisher of the site bears a far greater responsibility. Many of these Web sites, especially those geared towards gossip, actively encourage and facilitate an atmosphere where people can say things they would never sign their names to. Given that, the law should intervene to protect people who are libeled online by user-generated content, particularly when such postings are not distinguishable from the site itself.
Even the founder of JuicyCampus.com will concede that “it hasn’t all been fun and games.” And in a perfect world, the privilege of free speech would be tempered by the discipline of individual virtue. There would be a standard of decorum to which Internet users held themselves. But until the gossip geeks out there put an end the charade, there should be stricter legislation on Web gossip.