California court: websites not liable for libel in third-party postings

[BJ_M]

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Websites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The ruling in favour 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 websites.

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 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 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 the U.S. 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.

[Joe The Dude]

Unless the U.S. 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.

That sounds fair.

[ZAPPER]

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,"



There is always a fine line to be crossed.

[SquirrelDip]

So is flaming okay again?

[ZAPPER]

So is flaming okay again?

Apparrently only if you use quotes from other people

[thecoalman]

That's the way it should be, any other ruling would effectively put an end to forums such as this one.

[glockjs]

always somebody to sue i guess. yeah good ruling imo. freedom of speech STILL>feelings ^ ^

[ZAPPER]

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,"



There is always a fine line to be crossed.

Intent