Immunity for Defamatory Information on the Internet Granted in California

In the case of the Stephen J. Barrett v. Ilena Rosenthal, the California Supreme has recently provided immunity to any user and internet provider that publishes any information provided by another information content provider, even if the content contains defamatory untruthful statements. The court advised that is what congress enacted and the court cannot change the law. It is up to congress to change it, in the meantime a person is still entitled to sue the original publisher of defamatory statements. In this case plaintiffs, Dr. Stephen J. Barrett and Dr. Timothy Polevoy, operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. Defendant Ilena Rosenthal directed the Humantics Foundation for Women and operated an Internet discussion group. Plaintiffs alleged that Rosenthal and others committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings, impugning plaintiffs' character and competence and disparaging their efforts to combat fraud. They alleged that Rosenthal republished various messages even after Dr. Barrett warned her they contained false and defamatory information.

The Court stated that: In the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress declared: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1).) "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." ( 230(e)(3).) These provisions have been widely and consistently interpreted to confer broad immunity against defamation liability for those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another source.

We conclude that section 230 prohibits "distributor" liability for Internet publications. We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual "users" of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use.

www.arnoldhernandez.com

California Supreme Court Case S122953

Cellular Phone Company
Free Att Wireless
#
Personal Injury Law Firm
Phone Accessories
Car Insurance Quotes
Denver Car Accident Lawyer
Wisconsin Automobile Insurance
Dwi Crime
Ringtones Wireless
Cellular Phone Service Rating
Dfw Dwi
Austin Criminal Attorney
Georgia Car Accident Lawyer
Civil Attorney
Phone Service
Criminal Defense Lawyers In Bakersfield
Accident Injury Lawyers
New Jersey Attorney
Government Loan Student
Electrolux Cordless Stick Vacuum
California Family Attorney
Shark Cordless Handheld Vacuum
Death Law
Attorneys In Alaska
Probation Dwi
Auto Accident Injury Attorney
Free Wireless Phone
Broadband Phone Service
Cell Phones For Children
Loan Calculator
Att Wireless Gsm
Wrongful Death Attorney
Accident Injury
Wirless Aircard
Traffic Accident Lawyers
Accident Attorneys
Cell Phone Synchronization
Razor Cell Phones
Prepaid Wireless
Car Insurers
Michigan Auto Accident Lawyer
Dog Bite Lawyer
Tmobile
Illinois Dwi
Lawyer
Cost Of Car Insurance
Dui Attorney Fort Lauderdale Florida
Accident Attorneys
Cell Phone Pc Sync
Virginia Criminal Defense Lawyers
Hand Vacuum
Car Accident Attorney Dallas
Nextel
Virginia Dwi Attorney
Attorney Find
Consolidation Calculator
Estate Planning Attorney
Nextel Wireless
Cellular Phone Comparison
Data Communications
Cellphone Service
At&t Mobile
Car Accident Compensation
Dui Attorney In Torrance
Vehicle Accident Attorneys
Cellar Phone Service
Sync Adapter
Wrongful Death Lawyer Kentucky
Cell Phone Wireless
Aircard 580 Software
Att
Florida Wrongful Death Lawyer
Aircard Antenna
Dui Attorney Knoxville