73 CommentsFound in Sulzberger and on a South Lawn bulletin board.
This photo has been taken down at the request of someone who, over
the phone, claimed that he was the person pictured, but did not
identify himself.
UPDATE, October 10: This comment thread has been removed at the request of an administrator who said that the subject of the post desired its removal.
Loading …
73 Comments
@the thing is... …BWOG is assuming that “Someone had a bad date.”
You don’t know that.
You don’t know if the flyer was made as a mean practical joke by the guy’s friends (or enemies), or by someone who got the disease from him without her knowledge. Maybe the person posting didn’t get the disease, but is mad at the guy and is using that knowledge against him.
Or maybe he doesn’t have it at all and the poster is just taking her frustrations out via a cheap shot.
Either way, it’s not BWOG’s place to presume the intent behind the flyer (or its validity), and it’s not exactly “newsworthy.”
Irresponsible, definitely.
@sounds a lot like... rita morales to me.
@think about it Remember if it is true, then there is no problem. I truth that BWOG is run by intelligent people who thought (a little) before they put this up. Think for a moment…what if BWOG happens to know that this well known athlete has a STD. Taking a poster that is all over campus (visible to the public community) and putting it on a its website (that is frequented by that same community) would not be an issue.
@legally it might not be a problem. but it is really inappropriate. bwog is not meant to be for personal attacks. it’s supposed to be snarky, but not mean.
@Legally If it’s true, they should be okay. Although I’m thinking of print, online is different although BWOG does have a print edition…
But if the guy did have the herp, it’s fit to print if it’s true–or in this case that someone put up a poster saying so
@Slow down We don’t really need more talk about how legal it is. The fact is that it’s terribly inappropriate and mean, and Bwog screwed up. Publications do that from time to time, but I think it’s high time for a post containing an apology.
There are probably two reasons one has yet to run. Either the editor is hoping that it will be forgotten if they don’t talk about it, or she thinks running the picture was justifiable. The first is cowardly and the second is laughable.
@hmm Also an interesting point about this particular libel claim. Some statements (including statements of venereal disease) are defamatory per se, meaning that the plaintiff does not need to prove damages. It would also seem impossible for Bwog to hypothetically prove the truth of their statement, considering a medical test would have to be consented to by the victim.
@disappointed Regardless of the dubious quality of some of the posts/personal diary entries recently, I’m disappointed that Bwog is not issuing some statement of apology or explanation. When the NYTimes fucks up, it writes a short blurb about it admitting fault (or gets a nice Supreme Court case). Is Bwog just keeping quiet in the hopes that people will just shrug and forget about it?
@Bwog (not really) Yes.
@Beeyotch Maybe I’m just heartless, but I have limited sympathy for people who contract STDs via consensual sex. In this day and age, we all know the risk – you’re just plain stupid if you don’t wrap it or make your partner wrap it. You can’t fuck around with unsafe sex, then go whining all over campus when you end up catching something.
@agreed Isn’t seeing little red bumps one of the Nine Ways of Knowing?
@Sprinkles Wow, Bwog, way to lower the bar.
@Initially confused Until I read the comments, I thought Bwog was describing a bulletin board displaying a slip of paper that said, “This photo has been taken down at the request of someone…”
@reason Although I do agree that posting (and therefore promoting it to a much wider audience) this was equal parts tasteless and pointless, I’m surprised at how quickly the threat of a libel suit came up.
If you consider Bwog to be a newspaper, then reporting on an incident of libel is not considered the same as libel itself in the eyes of the law (and the media has a lot of leeway here in general).
If, on the other hand, you consider Bwog to be the journal of a private party, then posting a photo of something that took place in a public area is illegal only in extremely rare cases (any that I can think of deal with minors).
@ZOMG black person alert! black person alert! a black person was involved in this incident! comments preceding this one are ALL RACIST. All comments following this one are ALSO RACIST. If you do not wish to be construed as a bigoted slave owner, redirect your comments to a post about Asians or Whites. Go tell them how they are all dirty racists.
@Agreed Too lazy to go back and see which post number it was, but BWOG really has been horrible this year compared to previous. Can’t count how many more articles are just pure garbage, detailing somebody’s events and hoping to influence others. BWOG isn’t your personal journal. Go back to your myspace for that and spam your friends to your hearts content, please.
Maybe BWOG has herpes and sees this as an opportunity to deflect the attention away from themselves and onto said person….rumor is the poster was actually supposed to be this:
http://fileblaze.com/new/file.php?file=file01/081007/1191821432/columbia.bmp&s=t
@Anonymous I’m going to have to agree with those who feel that Bwog should not have posted this item. It was obviously an immature act in the first place that spurned this post (the original placement of the poster around Barnard campus) and for Bwog to post it is just condoning this one person’s ridiculous action.
Hopefully in the future Bwog will be a little more selective in what they put up on this site, as a slow news day is better than a hurtful one. Whether the allegation on the poster is true or not, it frankly is none of our business and the release of the information (both by the immature original flyer-putter-upper and Bwog) is completely pointless and would obviously generate gossip and rumors.
It’s one thing to create posts about those in the public eye for their own doing (political figures, celebrities, etc.) but I’m sure the person on the flyer had nothing to do with his picture being plastered on campus with disparaging comments. So for future posts, stop, breathe, think: does what I am putting out into the blogsphere serve a legitimate purpose, or is it just a personal attack (or the perpetuation of one) on someone for no legitimate reason?
@jesus Whats going on? Herpes? Don’t you watch those commercials… They look so happy. Move on!
@response to #47 It’s all fun and games until someone gets a cold sore, eh?
@gracias thanks
@Wait I remember this… it’s from motherfucking John Tucker Must Die.
@libel suit standards are different for private citizens, and the bar is set much, much lower.
@Jose Canseco That’s not true! Race is the only characteristic that defines every situation imaginable! This is obvious and you are a racist if you fail to admit it.
@question for those late to the game (aka post-picture removal) can someone describe the contents of the infamous photo?
@just a handsome-looking male who must’ve been an athlete (the pic was an athletics portrait)
@.... it was clearly not “just a handsome looking male.” what complemented the photo which made it so outrageous?!
@omg Look at post #26…there’s your answer.
@Anonymous “Yes, it’s been a lazy Sunday; Bwog’s on hiatus while we lay out the October….”
We were better off being lazy.
@Anonymous oh no!!!
Bwog tends to be the one reporting controversy.
But this time… they are in trouble.
I’m glad though. Because Bwog twists stuff and now they are twisting their own stuff created by them and in trouble deleting, editing, and regretting posting what they posted.
This did not need to be reported in a blog. Even Bwog is controversial.
Describe this color in one lowercase word.
@yeah seriously just because a black person is involved in a situation does not mean commenting upon the situation is racist.
@well as policy deleting posts after they’ve been put up seems like a dangerous thing to allow. if the editors forbid themselves to delete, um, controversial posts, after the fact, they may reflect more on what they’re posting. just my two cents.
@Interesting I think that’s an interesting approach and evidently the one Bwog is following in this instance, but I think a much more useful educational exercise for the Bwog staff would be an internal discussion of whether this sort of thing is appropriate.
Since it’s quite obviously not appropriate, the better editorial decision would be to take down what someone pointed out is only a forum for speculation that’s likely to devolve into the usual drivel in any case. Regardless, it has lent publicity to an otherwise private matter in a way that, while questionably litigable, is ethically questionable and unquestionably mean-spirited.
@honestly it kind of bothers me that everyone just assumes that since the kid was black, that the post is inherently racist.
isn’t that a bit racist in and of itself?
@Yo Bwog Can you do me a favor and just redirect me to Gawker? It would save both of us a lot of work.
@seriously though this post was a bad idea in the first place, but leaving it up now is even worse.
the post in the first place was ridiculous – gossip-spreading, not news, not community. it was a juvenile, somewhat racist, incredibly low post, which never would have happened if it had been someone who someone on the staff knew. but because it was a random black kid, it flew by. and it said herpes, which is hilarious, right?
but it’s up, and i guess it’s staying up.
assuming that the bwog wants to keep their clean ethics by never posting the name / picture again, they’ve only managed to create a forum where everyone will be posting the picture and speculating about the name. good luck keeping up with that.
if you’re not going to take the post down, how about you seriously think about what you’re going to do to keep things like this from happening again. it’s embarrassing.
@was it you? what is #37’s big deal? bitter much?
@libel lawsuits are very difficult to win. the plaintiff must prove not only that the information published was false, but that the publisher had reasonable doubts about its falsity and published it anyway. i think there’s something in there about malice, too, but i can’t remember exactly what.
@herpes? I think around 90% of adult Americans have the herpes virus? What’s the big deal?
@do not worry my dear young lady, I am quite sure that the wide array of other STDs you have acquired over your time in Columbia (or Columbia’s time in you…) will absolutely decimate the poor herpes virus that was unfortunate enough to have landed on your doorstep.
@yes, but the question is not who put the information on bwog, but who distributed the information in a public manner. If the false claim is already in the public sphere and bwog reported on the fact of its dissemination, then bwog is not at fault. I think.
@justice Bwog probably did not infringe on libel law. According to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
If the person who originally posted the flyer is considered an “information content provider,” which is a reasonable conclusion, then Bwog’s not at fault.
@but but someone from bwog posted it on the site. this was not a situation where an outside person posted the information. bwog took information and posted it on their own site…
@anon doesn’t it have to be false to be libel? isn’t it possibly true (and therefore all the more hilarious)?
@what just happened to “doubting the veracity of this claim”? What idiot media outlet would fuck around with divulging someone’s medical history? That’s serious shit, Bwog.
@seriously this site is sucking recently. how could you even DREAM of posting this on your website? the poster itself is libel and your publicizing it on your website makes you party to libel as well. are you all dumb or just smoking too much hash to think straight any more?
@me! I’d be much more interested in a bwog post on where one could get said hash
@for reals
bwog you’ve been going down the tubes the past few weeks.
whats the problem?
@I like how my marginally insensitive comment was deleted entirely. Compared to the fact that you publicized this guy’s photo on teh whole interwebz, I think a mild GHB joke can remain for the world to see as well.
@also i didn’t see it before bwog took it down. but my feed reader captured it.
@#21... …has got it right.
BWOG…you should know better!
I say “tsk tsk” full of righteous indignation!
@the poster said this is the face of herpes.
and then a picture of a student.
@tell what did the poster say? Can someone just describe it? no need to name names.
@under POST TITLE:
Someone had a bad date
POST BODY:
Found in Sulzberger and on a South Lawn bulletin board.
[Photo of a flyer. The flyer has “FEMALES BEWARE:”, then a formal-style picture of a student, then “THIS IS THE FACE OF HERPES”.]
@wtf? will someone who saw it explain to those of us who didn’t make it before bwog took it down what exactly teh poster was?
@Uhh, Bwog I would delete this post entirely. Public knowledge or not, it’s up to the individual in question (the girl) to spread her claim in public; Bwog should not be abetting it, especially since there’s no way to verify. (i.e. you could be abetting libel). Now that the guy’s name is on here, you should delete the whole post, not just the picture.
@when did bwog become perez hilton?
@if it is true should it not be public knowledge?
@oh no stuart scott what hast thou done?
@really? Alphonso Ribiero?
So sad….
@who? someone has to figure out who this dude is
@holy shit that is craziness right there
@we have all missed the opportunity for an obvious barnard joke
@whaat this is awful. and hilarious.
@holy crap THE BEST POSTER TO EVER GRACE THIS CAMPUS
@.... DAMN
@dear bwog this would be considered libel. i don’t know this person but it’s clearly a columbia athlete. i don’t think it’s fair to have this up.
@meh “but it’s clearly a columbia athlete”
you’re racist.
@no sir he’s in a suit, with that generic plain background, looking stoic. this is an athletics photo. if you don’t believe me sift through some of these:
http://www.gocolumbialions.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9600&KEY=&SPID=3885&SPSID=43658
@meh or it is a high school photo.
@No, it is definitely a athlete’s photo.
@meh My first response:
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
followed by:
“Pwned”
But upon further review, I think this was just mean.