SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has ruled that Internet publishers cannot be held liable for publishing defamatory remarks written by other individuals.
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the people who claim that they were defamed can go after those who had originally written the content, but cannot hold the publishers or distributors guilty of defamation, “even if the publisher or distributor was an individual.”
Stating their stand, the California's high court justices said, "We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement."
The court thereby reversed the decision taken by the appeals court, where two doctors had filed a lawsuit against defendant Ilena Rosenthal claiming that Rosenthal was guilty of distributing e-mails and Internet postings that contained statements which would impugned their character and competence.
In her defense, Rosenthal said that her statements were well protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
However, a Californian appeals court had convicted Rosenthal saying that Internet service providers and users could be held liable if they publish or distribute statements that they knew were defamatory.
The High Court took the case because Rosenthal was an individual and not a service provider. "By declaring that no 'user' may be treated as a 'publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users," the court's justices opined.
