Court ruling protects Web sites

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Web sites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The ruling in favor of free online expression was a victory for a San Diego woman who was sued by two doctors for posting a purportedly libelous e-mail on two Web sites.

Some of the Internet’s biggest names, including Amazon.com, AOL, EBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, took the defendant’s side out of concern that 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.

“The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,” Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the majority opinion. “Nevertheless … statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended.”

Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled.

The case centers on an opinion piece sent via e-mail to Ilena Rosenthal, a women’s health advocate.

The scathing missive, written by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy of Canada of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various invectives directed at Dr. Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett of Pennsylvania. The two doctors operated Web sites such as Quackwatch and Canadian Quackery Watch, devoted to exposing health frauds.

After Ms. Rosenthal posted the piece to two newsgroups, Dr. Polevoy and Dr. Barrett sued her, Mr. Bolen and others for libel. The lawsuit accuses Ms. Rosenthal of republishing the information after being warned it was false and defamatory.

The trial court ruled that Ms. Rosenthal’s actions were protected, but an appeals court decided she was not shielded from liability as a distributor of the information. The state Supreme Court’s ruling reversed that decision.

Legal scholars said the ruling follows similar decisions in other states designed to protect free and open access to information.

“Even though the court recognizes that it could have unfortunate consequences, they’re saying that Congress controls this area,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.