|
Classic libel law holds publishers, such as newspapers or TV networks, liable for libelous statements. However, "distributors," such as newstand vendors, are not responsible.
The Federal Communications Decency Act of 1997 says: “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 question before the California Supreme Court in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether these words mean what they say. Answer: yes.
The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications. Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet service providers or users to be sued as “distributors,” nor does it expose “active users” to liability.
Plaintiffs are free under section 230 to pursue the originator of a defamatory Internet publication. Any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action. ADDENDUM: A Federal District Court in IL has also issued a CDA section 230 opinion, one that could open the door to restrictive state laws.
Get your tickets for the next big legal battle.
posted by James DeLong @ 9:08 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)
|
