UPDATE, SEPT. 10: Tish Grier provides more background on this case...
On Sept. 6 AP reported that the California Supreme Court "is taking a dim view of libel lawsuits against Web site operators who post inflammatory information from other sources." According to AP, the justices voiced this perspective during a short hearing Tuesday to test the 1996 Communication Decency Act.
Barrett v. Rosenthal (case S122953) involves a San Diego woman who posted an allegedly libelous e-mail she received on her site's message board. Her case attracted amicus briefs from online heavyweights such as Amazon, AOL , eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo -- understandable, since a ruling against this defendant might open them up to similar liability.
The court will rule on the case within 90 days, but justices appear to lean toward dismissing it, says AP.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also filed a brief in this case, and offers many resources related to the case online.
AP noted: "Congress has treated the Internet much differently than newspapers, which are liable for what they print. The treatment varies largely to not hinder the free flow of massive amounts of information available to anyone with Internet access." Makes me wonder if such a distinction is still valid, with the way the news business has been migrating online. Maybe news organizations should be filing briefs on this one, too.
Tom Mallory of the San Diego Union-Tribune (who tipped us off about this story, thanks!) observed in an e-mail: "While protection to ferret out the truth is nice, I kind of wish the courts or Congress would revisit this law. It bothers me to run content online that is clearly defamatory but to get to say it's OK because we can't get sued. It's like a legal neener-neener."
Thank you for covering this case. As the defendant in...
