Internet Users Protected For Posting Another’s Libelous Statements

A person who republishes potentially libelous statements of another on the Internet is immune from being sued, the California Supreme Court has ruled.

Under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) Section 230, the court found that any Internet user who posts an article from another is protected from being sued unless the party injured can show that the re-poster was in a conspiracy to publish the libelous information. The court was faced with the question of what the term “user” means in the statute that states a user of an interactive computer service is not liable for taking action to make information available to others.

The case was brought by two doctors who operated a web site devoted to exposing health fraud. The defendant operated an Internet discussion group. The defendant posted an article on the discussion group that accused one of the plaintiffs of stalking a Canadian radio producer. The trial court found that the republication was immunized by the CDA but the appellate court reversed.

In reversing the appellate court, the California Supreme Court found that a user who republishes information on the Internet falls under the CDA’s protection. “By declaring that no ‘user’ may be treated as a ‘publisher’ of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users,” the court wrote. The court said the plaintiffs had recourse only if they could show a “conspiracy” to post the statement. “Plaintiffs are free under section 230 to pursue the originator of a defamatory Internet publication,” the court wrote.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, Calif. Sup. No. S122953, Nov. 20, 2006.