Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Internet Libel OK'd by Courts

Thank God! The L.A. Times reports:
Internet users and providers cannot be held liable for posting defamatory material written by someone else, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court. But, she added, immunity "serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation."

[...]

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," Corrigan wrote. "Book sellers, news vendors or other 'distributors' … may only be held liable if they knew or had reason to know of a publication's defamatory content."

Congress "chose to protect even the most active Internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third-party content," she wrote.

[...]

She said the threat of liability also would reduce the flow of ideas on the Internet. "The volume and range of Internet communications make the 'heckler's veto' a real threat," Corrigan said.


The defendant, Ilene Rosenthal of the Humantics Foundation, blogs here. The case was brought by the erstwhile thugs known as the Quackbusters.

Here is EFF's FAQ on Online Defamation.

Wikipedia entry on the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

* Discussion @ /.

UPDATE: Comprehensive coverage of blogger reaction to the Barrett v. Rosenthal decision at CJR.

3 comments:

Great Future said...

Unlimited Earnings Potential - http://1greatfuture.com

Our company is rapidly growing and offers you an extraordinary income helping others succeed. The primary requirement is to follow up on client inquiries and point them in the right direction. It is stress free, rewarding and straightforward work.

For complete details: http://1greatfuture.com


(Please feel free to delete this post if you don't want it on your blog. Thanks for the informative blog and opportunity to post.)

Free Webmail Program said...

Webmail program for the major free email sites -
http://inovasphere.com/mmail.htm

My Mail 1.0 is configured to work with AOL, Gmail, Hotmail, Linuxmail, and Yahoo. With My Mail 1.0 you get the benefit of premium services without having to pay site fees. My Mail 1.0 completely automates the process of sending and receiving mail from the major sites, saving you time and trouble.

My Mail 1.0 eliminates the need to visit web sites to send and receive mail, which increases the speed of sending and receiving email by over 80%, even if they do not offer what is known as POP3, IMAP and SMTP. My Mail 1.0's look is also fully customizable. One you use it, you'll never want to go back to the web site again to get your mail.

For complete details: http://inovasphere.com/mmail.htm




(Please feel free to delete this post if you don't want it on your blog. Thanks for the informative blog and opportunity to post.)

Michael Roberts of Rexxfield and Mile2 said...

hi, you need to moderate your comments so people don't leave spam like you can see above.

It's ironic that you titled your posting "Internet libel OK'd by courts". It is ironic because "libel" is unprotected free speech. It is deliberate and malicious statements of fact that a false. It is legally and morally wrong.

Unfortunately in the United States, and to some extent in other countries, the courts are in fact encouraging Internet libel by letting its practitioners wield their toxic keyboards with impunity.

Yes I believe in free speech, but it is not perfect. All good things are subject to abuse, and Internet anonymity is a perfect example. In a perfect world free speech would be perfectly executed; but then again so would Communism.

Regards, Michael Roberts of Rexxfield Internet Libel Guardians