« Prominent Blogger Is Banned By YouTube | Main | Bull Moose On The Loose On Capitol Hill »

California Speech Ruling Hailed As Win For Blogs

The blogosphere would not exist as we know it if people didn't reprint and link to the words of others. But when those others say defamatory things, should bloggers be held legally accountable for spreading bad information?

The California Supreme Court says "no." In a decision announced Monday, the court ruled that Internet service providers cannot be held liable for defamatory content posted by third parties.

The case in question was not related to blogs; rather, a woman who ran an e-mail list and newsgroup about breast cancer was sued for posting a man's letter that was critical of a doctor. But MSNBC reports that free-speech advocates had warned that a ruling against the e-mail and newsgroup publisher could have impacted blogs and other online forums, too.

The court ruled unananimously that current federal law gives broad protection to online publishers. "Congress contemplated self-regulation, rather than regulation compelled at the sword point of tort liability," the judges said in overturning a 2003 decision against the publisher. "It chose to protect even the most active Internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third party content."

The court hinted that perhaps the governing federal law should be changed. "We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences." But the judges added that Congress will have to intervene, and until then, "plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement."

Blogger Dan Gillmor of the Center for Citizen Media praised the ruling. "This is an absolutely crucial decision," he wrote, "and it will reverberate for years to come."

The San Francisco Chronicle also reported on the decision, and Deep Links, the blog of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, praised the ruling.

UPDATE: The list of blogs that have praised the California court's ruling include Crooks and Liars, Instapundit, Patterico's Pontifications, TalkLeft and Wizbang. But Michelle Malkin offered a dissenting voice.

"Perhaps because I have a foot in both the MSM and blog worlds and have been the target of defamation, I don't see the ruling in quite the same positive light," she wrote. "Why should online speech be held to a different standard than other speech? ... But aren't bloggers the ones arguing that we should be treated like MSM journalists? Isn't that what the Apple vs. bloggers case was all about? Remember? Seems to me that some bloggers want to enjoy the benefits of MSM status (fighting for the same coverage as traditional journalists under shield laws, as in the Apple case), but avoid the consequences (getting sued if they republish defamatory material online)."

The decision also prompted Nichole Altmix to blog about "The Legal Dos and Do Nots Of Networked Journalism" at NewAssignment, a citizen media site, and The Volokh Conspiracy offered a legal analysis.

Posted by Danny | 02:31 PM

Comments

The CA Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over CA. There's 49 other states out there.

Also, it only lets ISPs off the hook. Big whoop.

If a blogger posts original libelous comments, they are not off the hook. This issue was only about republishing someone else's comments. Seems to me that bloggers can still be sued for defamation.

So ... just make sure what you communicate negatively about someone else is true. Qualify it with "This is just my experience" instead of making broad claims of being a quack or a thief. Don't downplay your role in a conflict. Everything will come to light in a court of law, so don't embarass yourself.

If you are measured in your statements, precise in communicating the facts of a situation, the person who feels the sting of the criticism will likely not sue for libel because there is no libel if it's TRUE.

Of course, public figures -- celebrities, policians, etc. -- are public figures, looser rules, let rip.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. My blog criticizes no one, so I'm not worried.

kentuckyliz | 11.21.06 09:35 AM

In line with what Kentuckyliz posted ... let me ask:

What about a poster who is provided evidence (as in legal evidence) that the information they are posting and reposting is in fact erroneous? This is not about opinion ("Joe is a jerk"). If the poster continues to post the erroneous information which is defamatory, do they bear no responsibility?

Can they just say -- that's what I saw on xxx's site, and I am just copying what somebody else said -- and they are off the hook? Why are they not "off the hook?" as she writes. It would seem to me that reposting something which has been identified as false even *to the reposter* would make the reposter liable for what they reposted.

I love the internet, but there should be serious accountability for people who post and/or repost defamatory information which they have been notified is false.

I do not see how an ISP can be held accountable for everything that people post through their services, but they should act responsibly.

When does anyone become personally responsible for what they say/write?

Questioner | 11.21.06 09:57 AM

Post a Comment