(AP) College gossip website JuicyCampus (www.juicycampus.com) has released a statement denying allegations by a consumer fraud investigation that it violates a N.J Consumer Fraud Act by suggesting that it doesn’t allow offensive material to be posted by users.

The statement reads…

“JuicyCampus is a gossip website. We do not make any representations as to the truth or accuracy of any information posted on the Site, and in fact we expressly disclaim any such representations. Specifically, our terms and conditions clearly state that we do not screen content on the Site, and by using the Site, users agree that we have no obligation to do so. Furthermore, we do not charge users to access, read or post on our Site.”

Last week, the site was subpoenaed by New Jersey Attorney General, Anne Milgram as part of the investigation, which the site insists goes against federal immunity laws. A spokesman for the (allegedly) malicious rumor network continues…

“The position taken by the Attorneys General that website operators can be liable for failing to censor potentially defamatory, mean-spirited and uncivil postings has been rejected by Congress and by dozens of courts that have considered the issue, including those in New Jersey, where an appeals court has said that Federal immunity continues to apply even if the self-policing effort is unsuccessful or not even attempted.”

The possible conflict arises between the Consumer Fraud Act and the Federal immunity laws because of this line in the site’s terms and conditions…

“You agree to not use the Site to: ..[truncated]..
(c) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that: ..[truncated]..
(1) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, or invasive of another’s privacy;”

Whether there’s any fraud or not, it’s indisputable that only a quick glance at the site produces a torrent of abusive, and malicious rumors, often attributed to the victims full name, which may be anonymous for the poster, but not the target, making Juicy Campus an open forum for defamation and bullying.

Whatever the outcome of the investigation, this case raises an important point about just who is responsible for user-generated content, and where do you draw the line? What is seen by some as harmless gossip could have a very detrimental effect on individuals featured.

©SE all rights reserved. Linking policy