November 22nd, 2006, 05:20
A recent decision in California will come as some relief to Elephantspike:
US court protects second-hand defamation on internet
INTERNET users and providers cannot be held liable for posting defamatory material written by someone else, the California Supreme Court has ruled. Immunity "serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation", Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court.
The unanimous ruling came in response to a lawsuit by two doctors who claimed that the defendant, Ilena Rosenthal, and others distributed emails and internet postings that republished statements the doctors said impugned their character and competence. Monday's ruling was consistent with those by many federal appeals courts and one other state supreme court. "The courts are now uniform," said Ann Brick, who represented the American Civil Liberties Union in the case.
But lawyers on both sides of the case said the California Supreme Court went further than other courts by giving immunity to all internet users except the original author. "What you couldn't put in your print newspaper, you can put in your internet newspaper, " said Christopher Grell, who represented the two doctors who said they had been defamed. "The notion of fact checking and verifying things doesn't apply to the internet." Ms Rosenthal's lawyer, Mark Goldowitz, cited a line in the ruling that the decision brought "the law of libel from the Gutenberg era to the cyberspace era".
Unlike hard-copy publications, the internet allows users to "immediately respond and correct any harm", Mr Goldowitz said. "Not everyone has a printing press, but everyone can start a blog or post on a news group." Although the court did not specifically address media websites, lawyers on both sides said it would protect newspapers and other media that report defamatory remarks by third parties on their websites but not on their pages or on air. The decision threw out a lawsuit that claimed Ms Rosenthal, a San Diego activist for breast implant victims, had defamed Dr Stephen Barrett and Dr Terry Polevoy on the websites of two news groups. The doctors operated websites aimed at exposing health fraud in various kinds of alternative medicine. They said Ms Rosenthal, a supporter of alternative medicine, made the postings even after she had been told they were libellous.
The court explained that internet defamation law differs from that of other media. "Book, newspaper or magazine publishers are liable for defamation on the same basis as authors," Justice Corrigan wrote in the ruling. "Book sellers, news vendors or other 'distributors' тАж may only be held liable if they knew, or had reason to know, of a publication's defamatory content." The US Congress "chose to protect even the most active internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third party content", she wrote.
Los Angeles Times
US court protects second-hand defamation on internet
INTERNET users and providers cannot be held liable for posting defamatory material written by someone else, the California Supreme Court has ruled. Immunity "serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation", Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court.
The unanimous ruling came in response to a lawsuit by two doctors who claimed that the defendant, Ilena Rosenthal, and others distributed emails and internet postings that republished statements the doctors said impugned their character and competence. Monday's ruling was consistent with those by many federal appeals courts and one other state supreme court. "The courts are now uniform," said Ann Brick, who represented the American Civil Liberties Union in the case.
But lawyers on both sides of the case said the California Supreme Court went further than other courts by giving immunity to all internet users except the original author. "What you couldn't put in your print newspaper, you can put in your internet newspaper, " said Christopher Grell, who represented the two doctors who said they had been defamed. "The notion of fact checking and verifying things doesn't apply to the internet." Ms Rosenthal's lawyer, Mark Goldowitz, cited a line in the ruling that the decision brought "the law of libel from the Gutenberg era to the cyberspace era".
Unlike hard-copy publications, the internet allows users to "immediately respond and correct any harm", Mr Goldowitz said. "Not everyone has a printing press, but everyone can start a blog or post on a news group." Although the court did not specifically address media websites, lawyers on both sides said it would protect newspapers and other media that report defamatory remarks by third parties on their websites but not on their pages or on air. The decision threw out a lawsuit that claimed Ms Rosenthal, a San Diego activist for breast implant victims, had defamed Dr Stephen Barrett and Dr Terry Polevoy on the websites of two news groups. The doctors operated websites aimed at exposing health fraud in various kinds of alternative medicine. They said Ms Rosenthal, a supporter of alternative medicine, made the postings even after she had been told they were libellous.
The court explained that internet defamation law differs from that of other media. "Book, newspaper or magazine publishers are liable for defamation on the same basis as authors," Justice Corrigan wrote in the ruling. "Book sellers, news vendors or other 'distributors' тАж may only be held liable if they knew, or had reason to know, of a publication's defamatory content." The US Congress "chose to protect even the most active internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third party content", she wrote.
Los Angeles Times