Via Instapundit, Beltway
Blogroll is reporting the California Supreme Court has held that Internet Service Providers are not liable for
defamatory content posted by third parties:
"plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement."
It will be interesting to see how the regulatory bodies will react.
UPDATE: Eugene
Volokh adds his two cents:
A long line of cases had already held that when a user posts material on a site, the operator of the site (or of the computer), can't be held liable, even when it's notified of the potentially tortious nature of the activity. Thus, for instance, we wouldn't be liable for libels posted in our comments. But this case, as well as Batzel and some others, apply this principle even to immunize those who actively repost material, rather than just serve as passive conduits for what others post. This means that if a commenter posts excerpts from others' work, even the commentator himself would be categorically immune from liability for the contents of those excerpts, at least unless he's "active[ly] involve[d] in the creation of [the] posting," or unless he's conspiring with the original author.
UPDATE II: One commentator at Volohk Conspiracy:
This is not a victory for free speech, which was already protected; it is a victory for the perpetrators of libel and slander.
I'm not so sure that this is correct. The Internet provider cannot possibly screen every post for truth nor can every blogger
know what is true or false. The liability becomes too remote once you get past the person that has published the original
statement. The key for bloggers is to cite/link to give credit for the original statement.
cross post:
The London Fog