The courts and forms

[bobimport]

Court Says Blogs Can't Be Sued for Postings

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

(Nov. 22) - Bloggers and website owners cannot be sued for posting libelous or defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled. The court said only the original authors of comments published online can be sued.

Legal analysts say the 34-page decision, issued Monday, is significant because it brings California in line with other court rulings across the nation that have upheld the 1996 federal Communications Decency Act, which protects website owners from legal liability in libel or defamation lawsuits.

"Bloggers and website owners can all breathe a very big sigh of relief," says Gregory Herbert, an Orlando lawyer who specializes in First Amendment issues. "This decision adds more uniformity to the law and reduces the risk for liability for even individuals who are posting things onto website message boards and chat rooms."

The California case involved a lawsuit by two San Francisco-area doctors, Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy. They accused a San Diego woman, Ilena Rosenthal, of defaming them by using her website to post memos - obtained from a third party - that criticized the doctors.

Barrett and Polevoy ran websites that exposed health frauds, court papers say. They claimed Rosenthal libeled them by posting defamatory statements that impugned their character and competence in their efforts to combat fraud.

A judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2001. However, a state appeals court restored it in 2004, making California one of the few states where people seeking to sue website owners for defamation by third parties could hope to win in court.

Several Internet heavyweights, including Google, eBay, Yahoo and AOL, filed briefs in case. They warned that weakening the Communications Decency Act would chill free speech on the Internet.

Attorneys involved in several lawsuits involving website operators said Tuesday they were assessing the ruling's impact on their cases. The attorneys defending the owner of a dating website who is being sued by a Pittsburgh man who claims the site defamed him said they thought the California decision would help their defense.



Some retailers begin shopping season 1 day early with Thanksgiving specials and open doors
U.S. forces raid Iraq militia stronghold
Coffee shops make own holiday tradition
Walters: O'Donnell-Ripa feud is over
Wie starts with a whimper, cards opening 81 in Japan


Tasha Joseph, who owns dontdatehimgirl.com, a website where women post warnings about men they consider to be bad dates, is being sued by Todd Hollis, a Pittsburgh defense lawyer. Several postings on the site have accused him of having a venereal disease. Hollis says the postings are false.

Last spring, he sued Joseph and three women involved in the postings. Arguments over whether the lawsuit can be brought in Pennsylvania are scheduled for January. Joseph lives in Miami.

Joseph's attorneys have maintained that she is not responsible for the content of the messages on her website. "We're very happy," said Robert Byer, one of Joseph's attorneys. "If the judge follows (the California) decision in our case, it should lead to the dismissal of the suit against Tasha Joseph."

 

[dizzy]

This victory for free speech is but yet another reason to give thanks on this special day. Let freedom ring.
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

Its scary to see how the threat of legal harrassment and lawsuits can curtail free speech.
Speech that even infers impropriety brings the hammer down in some media. This is de-facto "Orwellian censorship" as it scares people into silence from the get-go and means that only the wealthy on both sides can afford free speech.

Why wealthy? Because ya gotta be rich to threaten the world you disagree with and reformers as well as the innocent gotta be rich to defend themselves in this new era.


The ruling was a wonderful thing to see.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Free speech also brings alopng with it a bunch of baggage. The right to slander and speak out ones arse comes to mind. It may be a right in this country, but along with that right comes a responsability to proper use it and not abuse it. Many seem to loose sight if that

 

[clarionreef]

A free country and a free press walks this line every day and it should be getting pretty well defined.

From the Pentagon papers, the Watergate expose, Three Mile Island, Love Canal, Jimmy Hoffas alleged Mafia ties... to Monica Lewenski, U.N. corruption scandals and the rumor of an illegal basis for the trade in most aquarium fish...what would happen if covering thy arse were the prime directive?

Why then would anyone ever take on an injustice?

Why fight for the forest against loggers or any other thousand injustices?
Discouraging courage would seem to follow.
Its by definition dangerous to take on anyone worth more then oneself and thats the antithesis of free speech. That becomes more like free speech for those who can afford it...like legal representation in a murder case.
If what constitutes defamation becomes any level of disagreement claimed to be injurious to ones sensitive image then one can be sued for nearly anything imagineable.
Thats the death of free speech and the start of a more finance driven "Don't start none...won't be none culture."
This is America...and as we evolve...we may segue into something ominous we never intended.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

We already have well defined laws against libel and slander. There is also such a thing as truth as a defense if someone tries to bring slander or libel charges against you. I think if someone is truly slandered or libeled they should bring suit against the guilty party. However if they are guilty of what is being said then they should probably just keep their mouth shut instead of threatening to sue. :wink: