Yippee! Websites NOT libel for third-party postings!

In a good decision, the California Supreme Court has said that website publishers (such as yours truly) are NOT liable for libelous postings by others on the website.

Of course this means that the original poster IS still liable if they defame or libel someone or a company or organization.

This is a huge victory for Freedom of Speech, btw, cause now webmasters don't need to worry about having to censor this type of speech. The responsibility lies completely with the poster.

I'll be breathing easier for a long time to come...



arty:



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.

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Associate Justice Carol 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 the U.S. 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.



Source:http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_z112019A.xml.html

 

Colombo, I think you're confused about publishing rights. Original copyright is always owned by the originator unless they sell or give away those rights. Any and every publisher is granted a LIMITED publishing right (copyright) when a person makes a post. The original poster still retains their rights to that work, it never passes over to the publisher. Same for books or any media.

The big difference between books & the Web is that a publisher edits every word in a book, whereas on the Web, it's impossible for a publisher to read, much less edit every word.

This area of the law is so new, most lawyers themselves haven't a clue. So I have to keep up on it myself, usually.

In fact I just informed a lawyer a few minutes ago of this law. He threatened me with a lawsuit just last week over a comment someone made on an article in Hippy.com. I set him straight.

 

No, not a lot. Occasionally we get asked to take something down, but we don't always comply. Everything is considered on a case-by-case basis.

There have recently been issues with slander/defamation against a commune and a business. To be slander/defamation, it would have to be a lie, and in some cases it's not possible for us to make such a determination.

Unfortunately this ruling doesn't make it clear whether we still are supposed to remove such stuff once we've been informed of it, or if we are still liable if we don't. It seems to imply that we have a blanket immunity - they can't sue us for the words of others, period. So that would also imply we could leave it up with impunity, until the poster themselves edit it or request its removal.