Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Websites not liable for third party posts

                  
   
  1. #1
    Won Hung Lo wraggster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Age
    52
    Posts
    139,260
    Blog Entries
    3209
    Rep Power
    50

    Default Websites not liable for third party posts

    The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Monday stating that websites can't be sued over third-party content, the Associated Press reports.

    The court found that, according to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, only the person responsible for creating libellous content can be pursued.

    At issue was a San Diego woman, Ilena Rosenthal, who is alleged to have slandered a doctor by posting email memos obtained from third parties on her website, the wire service says.

    The decision is bad news for lawyers, who naturally take on these cases in hopes of suing the daylights out of rich operators like Google, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, and the like. Not surprisingly, many of these outfits generously participated on behalf of the defendant.

    A Lower California court had ruled that the liability protections provided by the Communications Decency Act did not apply to individual online "distributors" of putatively libellous content, like Rosenthal. But the state Supremes found that "by declaring that no 'user may be treated as a publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunised re-publication by individual internet users".

    Thus lawyers' lobbying groups will have to go back to Capitol Hill and buy some better legislation, allowing them to sue wealthier targets.

  2. #2
    DCEmu Coder Smurph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    210
    Rep Power
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraggster View Post
    The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Monday stating that websites can't be sued over third-party content, the Associated Press reports.

    The court found that, according to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, only the person responsible for creating libellous content can be pursued.

    At issue was a San Diego woman, Ilena Rosenthal, who is alleged to have slandered a doctor by posting email memos obtained from third parties on her website, the wire service says.

    The decision is bad news for lawyers, who naturally take on these cases in hopes of suing the daylights out of rich operators like Google, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, and the like. Not surprisingly, many of these outfits generously participated on behalf of the defendant.

    A Lower California court had ruled that the liability protections provided by the Communications Decency Act did not apply to individual online "distributors" of putatively libellous content, like Rosenthal. But the state Supremes found that "by declaring that no 'user may be treated as a publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunised re-publication by individual internet users".

    Thus lawyers' lobbying groups will have to go back to Capitol Hill and buy some better legislation, allowing them to sue wealthier targets.
    Something like this needs to reach the Federal Supreme Court.

    When that happens, /b/ will be invincible.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •