California Supreme Court OKs Web Libel Immunity

tanman writes "The California Supreme Court has ruled that websites which publish libelous text written by third parties cannot be sued for libel, reports CNN. The ruling found for the defendant, who was backed by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. The internet service companies following the case feared that a ruling against the defendant would find them liable for content posted to their respective websites. Even though the court allowed this could have far-reaching consequences, they ultimately wanted this to be a question more for Congress than the courts." From the article: "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."

Comments

Huge win for corrupt news organizations

[Josh Lindenmuth]

So basically, the California Supreme Court has just provided a fantastic shield to online news channels and even tabloids against libel suits. The work-around would look something like this:

1. News site writes libelous story that's too slanderous to publish
2. The company has one of their employee anonymously publish the story on a newsgroup, forum, or blog
3. Since the story is now "out", they now republish the story citing the now anonymous (and mostly forgotten) source
4. News company basks in their immunity

I'm no fan of lawsuits, and this decision is certainly a win for bloggers and most honest web publishers, but it sounds like the consequences of this decision were not well thought out (particularly in respect to the larger news organizations or tabloids).

Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations

[A beautiful mind]

Freedom can be used for both good and bad things.

Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations

[almost entirely lega]

The problem you cite in your hypothetical is potentially real, but your premise is wrong. The California Supreme Court didn't provide the shield, Congress did, and the Court's decision makes that plain - something judges occasionally do when they make a decision that they recognize can yield the wrong result, but feel bound nonetheless to issue the decision because, hey, they don't make the laws, they just interpret them. It should be no surprise that the troublesome section of law is part of the Communications Decency Act - the CDA has been problematic since it was hurriedly written...and parts of it have already been ruled to be unconstitutional.

Re:Common sense for a change

[kassemi]

The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.

What about redistributing anonymous posts?

[netbuzz]

While the journalist in me applauds the decision, I have to wonder how far the underlying principle is going to be taken. If victims of libel can only pursue action against the original poster, what about cases where the original poster is anonymous? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous. ... I mean even more enormous than under our previous understanding of libel protections. I'm willing to pay an awful lot for free speech. Just hope I'm not on the receiving end of one of these smears.

That's not what this decision is about

[overshoot]

The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.

Except in this case Rosenthal did exercise editorial control. She doesn't run a blog comments section; she broadcast Bolen's accusations to Usenet under her own account.