Court Ruling Protects ISPs From Libel Lawsuits

[mandy]

The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled that ISPs and Internet publishers cannot be sued for posting or distributing libelous material written by others.

At issue in the ACLU v. Gonzales case was the Child Online Protection Act Latest News about Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which would impose criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to US$50,000 per day and up to six months jail time, for posting content deemed harmful to minors under the law.

The California Supreme Court ruled that Internet providers cannot be sued for posting and distributing defamatory materials recognized under COPA, a law that was signed by President Clinton in 1998 but never enforced. The court, however, did not offer immunity to the authors of the defamatory material...

full article: http://ecommercetimes.com/story/IqUf5nWs...uits.xhtml

[BellisimaJ.]

The court, however, did not offer immunity to the authors of the defamatory material...

Something to note for those of us posting on forums, blogs, etc. This ruling still holds an author of libel accountable for their own actions/words. 

[mandy]

Analysis of the decision:

Web site providers can take a deep breath. The California Supreme Court has ruled that they are not legally responsible for content posted by third parties on their sites.

In the case of Barrett v. Rosenthal, the plaintiffs had operated Web sites that attempted to expose health frauds. The defendant directed the Humantics Foundation for Women and operated an Internet discussion group.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant and others had committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings that supposedly impugned the plaintiffs' character and competence and that also allegedly disparaged their attempts to combat fraud...

full article: http://news.com.com/2010-1030_3-6144464.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news