New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine has more, including this:
The attorney general contends that the site is violating the consumer fraud act because it fails to "honor the terms and conditions that it informs the public it will adhere to."
I called consumer affairs spokesman Jeff Lamm and asked him to direct me to any terms and conditions on the site that are binding on the operator. If such terms or conditions existed, I reasoned, then JuicyCampus must have hired the dumbest lawyers on the planet.
It didn't. Although Lamm said he was told by the attorney general's legal staff that "there were representations on the site about people who visit the site being able to report objectionable or malicious content or content that violates one's right to privacy," he couldn't direct me to any such representations.
In fact, the site's FAQ (frequently asked questions) section goes out of its way to tell complainers to buzz off. The answer to the question "What if I see a comment that isn't true?" amounts to five paragraphs of the old saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
Then there's this:
"Q. I'm offended!
"A: Sorry. Also, that's not a question ..."
David Wald, Milgram's spokesman, said the site is fraudulent because "there's no avenue to remove postings." But that would be fraudulent only if the site's operators had promised to remove postings. They didn't. And of course there are tens of thousands of other websites out there that offer no avenue to remove postings. Are they all subject to $10,000 fines under New Jersey consumer law?
The American Civil Liberties Union doesn't think so. "I can't fathom how the AG could consider this a target for a consumer fraud claim," said Deborah Jacobs of the New Jersey chapter....
Related Posts (on one page):
- JuicyCampus Lawyer Responds About the New Jersey Attorney General's Investigation:
- More on New Jersey Attorney General's Investigation of JuicyCampus.com:
- Misrepresentation by JuicyCampus?
With possibly the addition of the Spitzer Statute: "I don't have to be able to take it to trial if I can get enough press."
I still maintain that the way to handle the sort of thing is to:
(1) have offended people and their pals use online investigation to identify people making obnoxious comments and then expose them at their schools (many people, particularly dumbasses, use the same internet handle across multiple sites, and reveal more personal information at sites where they are more comfortable; my co-bloggers and I have identified "anonymous" online asshats by tracking down their Amazon wish pages, restaurant reviews, etc.);
(2) Investigate the terms on which the schools have extended use of the school networks to students. Is there a guarantee of privacy for traffic over the school-provided network? Or (if the schools are smart) is there an explicit disavowal of any expectation of privacy? If the latter, I'd be happy to see schools use traffic logs to identify students who posted some of the worst vile crap on Juicy Campus and then release their identities and what they posted. After all, (a) if you want to be anonymous, don't be an idiot and use an institution's expressly non-private internet connection, and (b) the right to speak does not include the right to be free of the social consequences of speech.
And something needs to be done about it.
She needs to get out more.
Why does the website not become liable for the content after the request to remove it is made?
Whether or not this this violates state fraud laws, it seems that there is a distinction here that is not being made? The poster has a right to speak, but she also has a right not to have others speak for her, no?
That sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. Why would you assume that?
It's also not correct. Kazinski's offering is far more likely to be correct, but I haven't seen any factual basis for it.
But it's not consumer fraud. And there's just no good way to turn entirely justifiable indignation into legislation, in such matters.
That asinine behavior is protected by a decent respect for liberty only makes its asininity more shameful, though.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.