| Revision as of 02:52, 26 November 2006 editRagesoss (talk | contribs)Administrators21,501 edits →California Supreme Court decision: add a sentence← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:53, 26 November 2006 edit undoRagesoss (talk | contribs)Administrators21,501 edits →External links: refsNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==California Supreme Court decision== | ==California Supreme Court decision== | ||
| In the California Supreme Court hearing, a number of internet corporations—including ], ], and ]—filed briefs on behalf of the defendent.<ref>"" by David Kravets (Associated Press), September 5, 2006. Accessed November 25, 2006.</ref> The California Supreme Court ultimately overturned the previous decision, interpreting Section 230 to apply to "distributors" of online content; only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable. The majority opinion, written by ] and concurred to by the other six judges, states: "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." In a separate concurring opinion, ] argued that immunity would not extend to the case of conspiracy between content provider and the online publisher or distributor of defamatory statements. | In the California Supreme Court hearing, a number of internet corporations—including ], ], and ]—filed briefs on behalf of the defendent.<ref>"" by David Kravets (Associated Press), September 5, 2006. Accessed November 25, 2006.</ref> The California Supreme Court ultimately overturned the previous decision, interpreting Section 230 to apply to "distributors" of online content; only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable. The majority opinion, written by ] and concurred to by the other six judges, states: "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." In a separate concurring opinion, ] argued that immunity would not extend to the case of conspiracy between content provider and the online publisher or distributor of defamatory statements. | ||
| ==References== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 02:53, 26 November 2006
Barrett v. Rosenthal is a California Supreme Court case concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; it is one of many libel suits with Stephen J. Barrett as a plaintiff. The court ruled that defendant Ilena Rosenthal, the operator of an internet discussion group, was immune from liability under Section 230.
Lower court rulings
The case was initially dismissed, but on appeal Rosenthal was held liable for the potentially libelous statements of users of her website. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states: "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." The Court of Appeals found that Rosenthal, as a "distributor", could still be held responsible for content republished after receiving notice of a defamatory statement, just as vendors of traditional media can be.
California Supreme Court decision
In the California Supreme Court hearing, a number of internet corporations—including Google, Yahoo!, and American Online—filed briefs on behalf of the defendent. The California Supreme Court ultimately overturned the previous decision, interpreting Section 230 to apply to "distributors" of online content; only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable. The majority opinion, written by Justice Corrigan and concurred to by the other six judges, states: "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." In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Moreno argued that immunity would not extend to the case of conspiracy between content provider and the online publisher or distributor of defamatory statements.
References
- "California justices frown on Internet libel lawsuits" by David Kravets (Associated Press), September 5, 2006. Accessed November 25, 2006.
External links
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |