California court: websites not liable for libel in third-party postings

[Callaway]

I saw this article and I thought it was interesting:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061120/technology/technology_internet_libel

Here is an excerpt.  Please follow the link for the full article.

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Websites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The ruling in favour of free online expression was a victory for a San Diego woman who was sued by two doctors for posting an allegedly libelous e-mail on two websites.

Some of the Internet's biggest names, including Amazon.com, America Online Inc., EBay Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., took the defendant's side out of concern a ruling against her would expose them to liability.

In reversing an appellate court's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits for people who publish information on the Internet that was gathered from another source.

[Leto729]

That is very interesting.

[odeon]

Hmm. Interesting indeed. So if I read that correctly, the Supreme Court means that an Internet message board, for example, could effectively go on being a free speech site without having to worry about disgruntled members suing them for libel, provided that the board's service provider allows its contents to begin with.

Is that your interpretation of the ruling as well?

[Callaway]

Hmm. Interesting indeed. So if I read that correctly, the Supreme Court means that an Internet message board, for example, could effectively go on being a free speech site without having to worry about disgruntled members suing them for libel, provided that the board's service provider allows its contents to begin with.

Is that your interpretation of the ruling as well?

Yes, that is my interpretation of the ruling as well.

[Leto729]

Hmm. Interesting indeed. So if I read that correctly, the Supreme Court means that an Internet message board, for example, could effectively go on being a free speech site without having to worry about disgruntled members suing them for libel, provided that the board's service provider allows its contents to begin with.

Is that your interpretation of the ruling as well?

That though is the California Supreme Court.

[McGiver]

Hmm. Interesting indeed. So if I read that correctly, the Supreme Court means that an Internet message board, for example, could effectively go on being a free speech site without having to worry about disgruntled members suing them for libel, provided that the board's service provider allows its contents to begin with.

Is that your interpretation of the ruling as well?

it also tells me that the service providers will likely become mor lax on their TOS.

yippie for freedom.
on the downside, intensity will be a dime a dozen within a few years.

[Draggon]

That though is the California Supreme Court.

where are we hosted again?

[duncvis]

This thread is missing something. 

 

[Callaway]

This thread is missing something. 

 

These too:

  

 

[odeon]

yippie for freedom.
on the downside, intensity will be a dime a dozen within a few years.

I doubt it. People aren't accustomed to freedom of speech. They think they are so free but you only have to yell "FUCK" to break the spell.

[Leto729]

That though is the California Supreme Court.

where are we hosted again?

You would have to ask duncvis or McJagger.