(NaturalNews) On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of individual internet users, stating that they cannot be held liable for reprinting the statements of others, even if those statements are defamatory.
One of the things that set the case in motion was when web sites centered on exposing health frauds sued Foundation For Women Director Ilena Rosenthal, who is also a founder of a newsgroup for women experiencing trouble with breast implants.
Rosenthal and others were accused of committing libel "by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings, impugning plaintiffs' character and competence and disparaging their efforts to combat fraud." Rosenthall specifically had reprinted a report on two newsgroups by another author who accused Healthwatch.com's Dr. Terry Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer.
A California state court upheld Rosenthal's position, but an appeals court found her liable as a distributor under an offline law that holds distributors such as newspaper vendors and booksellers responsible if they distribute newspapers and books with defamatory language after being forewarned. The Supreme Court stepped in, saying that to bring that law to the online world would adversely affect free speech and "make the 'heckler's veto' a real threat."
The Supreme Court justices admitted that "recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences," but added that anyone who claims to be defamed by an internet posting could only seek damages from the "original source of the statement," unless Congress changes Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act. A majority opinion from the justices -- written by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan -- stated that, by passing the law, Congress "has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users," intending "to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation."
Associate Justice Carlos Moreno wrote a concurring opinion that said Section 230 should not be used to protect distributors who conspire with sources of defamatory statements, but he did not believe that happened in Rosenthal's case.
The unanimous Supreme Court ruling could be the first to make clear the language of the act, which currently protects internet providers as well as online service users who redistribute content. The justices based their opinion on previous cases such as an April 1996 decision in favor of AOL, which was accused of failing to remove defamatory posts directed at a man named Kenneth Zeran quickly enough. In 2001, courts sided with eBay when it was charged with failing to do enough to ensure the authenticity of auctioned sports memorabilia.
Both AOL and eBay were protected from the liabilities under Section 230 on the understanding that they make the necessary effort to restrict access to material that might be considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."
During the case, Rosenthal received supporting briefs from internet service providers, law professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others. Lee Tien, attorney for EFF, was pleased with the ruling, but said the case should never have reached the Supreme Court because it was "obvious" that internet users were protected by Section 230.
Have comments on this article? Post them here:
people have commented on this article.
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: 
Now Available from 
