Generally speaking, newspapers and other publications are under no duty to investigate the accuracy of an advertisement or the trustworthiness of a particular advertiser prior to publication.

We've all seen them, and - since college student media seem to be a prime target - most of you have probably received them:

"Summer Dream Jobs in Exotic Locations!" "Make $3000 a Week at Home!" "Models Wanted, Big Bucks!"

The ads are often accompanied by a post office box address and instructions to mail $10 or so to obtain more information.

You know what you think when you see these things. But can you publish them? And what happens when one of your readers sues you claiming they were duped or harmed in some other way when they responded?

Assuming that the advertisements are not otherwise unlawful (that is, they are not libelous, obscene, copyrighted, etc.) you can publish them. Of course, you don't have to (assuming that students alone decide to reject the ad; if public school officials are involved it can get complicated). And there is always the ethical or editorial consideration of whether you should publish such ads? Legally, however, the choice is usually yours to make.

Next, unless the reader can show that you knew the ad was fraudulent or "harmful" when you published it (not merely that you had a strong hunch readers wouldn't be pulling in three grand a week while working in their bathrobes and slippers), you should be off the hook with them as well.

Generally speaking, newspapers and other publications are under no duty to investigate the accuracy of an advertisement or the trustworthiness of a particular advertiser prior to publication. Courts have pointed to the unreasonable burden that would be placed on newspapers if they were forced to investigate the accuracy of every ad, not to mention the constitutionally chilling prospect of "hordes of suits by disgruntled readers of inaccurate ads."

There are two fairly narrow exceptions to this "no responsibility" rule.

First, if a publication provides a specific guarantee or endorsement to its readers about the products or services it advertises, it may be bound by such promises. Where no promise is made, however, the general rule is: let the buyer beware.

Second, courts may be carving out another niche in extreme cases involving the advertisement of inherently dangerous products or services. For example, an Arkansas court said that it would allow a jury to decide whether Soldier of Fortune magazine should have foreseen that that a "gun-for-hire" advertisement it published might lead to injury. More recently, in cases not involving advertising, courts have assigned blame to those involved in the production of a how-to book for hit men and the movie "Natural Born Killers" for harm caused by third parties who said they were influenced by the works. In both cases the courts ruled that that the creators should have foreseen that their work could lead to injury or harm. (Significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of such cases.) For most college media, however, these unusual cases should present no direct threat.

P.T. Barnum once said "there's a sucker born every minute." Fortunately, courts have ruled that the student media will usually not bear responsibility for them.

Visit the Student Press Law Center online at http://www.splc.org.