In Barrett v. Rosenthal, the CA Superior Court said that ISPs and websites can be liable as distributors for third-party defamation.
If that ruling holds up, Slashdot (located in CA) appears to be covered.
I notice a lot of defamatory postings about me on this site. It might be wise for the admins here to take some responsibility.
Ray Gordon
The court said that in its ruling (that Google "Maintains The USENET." It equated Google with an ISP network cache or a system cache rather than a republisher or rebroadcaster. I don't believe that this is correct.
The more intriguing claim is the defamation claim, because in California, the Superior Court held in Barrett v. Rosenthal that "Section 230" immunity for libel does not extend to distributors (only to publishers). If that ruling holds up, it means my case would have won in CA. That case is presently before the CA Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is likely going to resolve all of these issues no matter what, and no one lawsuit will dominate the process. Mine only covers the Eastern District of PA and the Third Circuit, when I appeal, which I will.
Prior to the appeal, I'll be moving for reconsideration of the dismissal, and noting what I considered a miscontruing of the facts and a misapplication of the law regarding Google's status as a system cache, an ISP, or claims that it "maintains the USENET."
Slashdot Mirror
In Barrett v. Rosenthal, the CA Superior Court said that ISPs and websites can be liable as distributors for third-party defamation. If that ruling holds up, Slashdot (located in CA) appears to be covered. I notice a lot of defamatory postings about me on this site. It might be wise for the admins here to take some responsibility. Ray Gordon
The court said that in its ruling (that Google "Maintains The USENET." It equated Google with an ISP network cache or a system cache rather than a republisher or rebroadcaster. I don't believe that this is correct. The more intriguing claim is the defamation claim, because in California, the Superior Court held in Barrett v. Rosenthal that "Section 230" immunity for libel does not extend to distributors (only to publishers). If that ruling holds up, it means my case would have won in CA. That case is presently before the CA Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is likely going to resolve all of these issues no matter what, and no one lawsuit will dominate the process. Mine only covers the Eastern District of PA and the Third Circuit, when I appeal, which I will. Prior to the appeal, I'll be moving for reconsideration of the dismissal, and noting what I considered a miscontruing of the facts and a misapplication of the law regarding Google's status as a system cache, an ISP, or claims that it "maintains the USENET."