Web sites not liable for posts by others November 20, 2006 By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Business Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. - Web sites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday. The ruling in favor of free online expression was a victory for a San Diego woman who was sued by two doctors for posting an allegedly libelous e-mail on two Web sites. Some of the Internet's biggest names, including Amazon.com, America Online Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., took the defendant's side out of concern that a ruling against her would expose them to liability. In reversing an appellate court's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits for people who publish information on the Internet that was gathered from another source. "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the majority opinion. "Nevertheless ... statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended." Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled. The case centers on an opinion piece sent via e-mail to Ilena Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate who runs various message boards and promotes alternative medicine. The scathing missive, written by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy, of Canada, of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various invectives directed at Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett, of Pennsylvania. The two doctors operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. After Rosenthal posted the piece to two newsgroups, Polevoy and Barrett sued her, Bolen and others for libel. The lawsuit accuses Rosenthal of republishing the information after being warned it was false and defamatory. The trial court ruled that Rosenthal's actions were protected, but an appeals court decided she was not shielded from liability as a distributor of the information. The state Supreme Court's ruling reversed that decision. Legal experts said the ruling follows similar decisions in other states designed to protect free and open access to information. "Even though the court recognizes that it could have unfortunate consequences, they're saying that Congress controls this area," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. Christopher Grell, the lawyer for Polevoy and Barrett, said they have not decided whether to appeal the decision. "What this decision does is, it basically promotes the distribution of offensive material, which I can't imagine Congress ever intended," he said.
California court OKs broad Internet immunity November 20, 2006 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Individuals who use the Internet to transmit information from another source may not be held to account if the material is considered defamatory, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a reversal of an appeals court's decision. The decision supports federal law that clears individuals of liability if they distribute but are not the source of defamatory information. "We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement," California's high court justices said in their opinion. The opinion, written by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, addressed a lawsuit by two doctors who claimed defendant Ilena Rosenthal and others distributed e-mails and Internet postings that republished statements the doctors said impugned their character and competence. Rosenthal had countered her statements were protected speech and immune under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It holds that: "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." A California appeals court had ruled that Internet service providers and users could be held liable if they republish a statement if it is known to be defamatory. California's high court took that decision up for review because the lawsuit against Rosenthal involved an individual instead of a service provider, and opted for a broad view of immunity under the Communications Decency Act. "Requiring providers, users, and courts to account for the nuances of common law defamation, and all the various ways they might play out in the Internet environment, is a Herculean assignment that we are reluctant to impose," the court's justices held in their opinion. "By declaring that no 'user' may be treated as a 'publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users," they added.
Actually this only applies to California as far as I can tell. Other states aren't obligated to use this ruling as precedence. Would have been nice if it was actually taken to the Supreme Court.
It could end up in the Supreme Court if there are appeals and the Supreme Court decides to hear the case. Other states could point to the California case, but it'll be handled on a state by state basis each time something like this comes up.