Eh? At risk of persecution, I'll reproduce the entire article
here:
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.
As far as I can tell, the effect of the ruling is that only the
original source is liable, for damages or otherwise. I don't think
that is merely limiting the scope of damages.
