Calif. Ruling Rejects Libel for Online Republishers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In a decision that could have profound repercussions for web publishers, bloggers and anyone who posts to online message boards, the California Supreme Court said those who republish defamatory statements online couldn’t be held liable.

The unanimous ruling deals with the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Earlier court rulings had construed Section 230 of the statute to provide a shield for companies such as AOL and eBay from liability for defamatory remarks made by others, provided that the companies make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that could be considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable."

In drafting the law, Congress “has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users, intending to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said.

The case arises out of allegedly libelous statements made online by Ilena Rosenthal, a women’s health advocate, who published a letter by co-defendant Tim Bolen attacking Pennsylvania psychiatrist Stephen Barrett and Canadian doctor Terry Polevoy for their unfavorable views of alternative medicine.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman tossed the libel suit in 2001, but a San Francisco appellate court reinstated the case saying that an email from Barrett threatening to sue Rosenthal put her on notice that she could be held liable for publishing Bolen’s letter.

That ruling prompted a range of online companies, including Earthlink and Amazon.com, as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to file amicus briefs on behalf of Rosenthal and Bolen, arguing that imposing liability after a potential plaintiff sends email notice threatening to sue could chill free speech.

While the court said, "recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences,” the justices concluded that lawmakers would be the ultimate arbiters of the issue.

“Unless Congress revises the law, anyone who claims to be defamed by an Internet posting may seek damages only from the original source of the statement,” Corrigan said.

EFF attorney Lee Tien praised the decision, saying that “it’s so patently obvious that users are protected by the plain language and policy of [Section] 230.”

Attorney J.D. Obenberger told XBIZ he disagreed with the ruling.

"I think it's a nutty decision because it creates a plenary immunity for wilful defamation from a statute meant to restrict, rather than to enhance speech," he said. "It leaves the victims of intentional, malicious lies without remedy or recourse for the republication of hurtful lies about them by persons who know the statements to be harmful lies."

According to Obenberger, the decision builds in the direction of irresponsibility for webmasters.

"The California Supreme court has taken an anti-free speech statute and found in it a cart blanche to knowingly publish defamatory material, so long as the publisher is not the author."

In the decision, Corrigan noted that the defamation jurisprudence developed over the lengthy history of offline publishing isn’t always a source from which judges can rely upon without accounting for changes in technology.

In offline defamation cases, the law distinguishes between “publishers,” such as newspapers, and “distributors,” such as newsstands. Distributors can only be held liable if they are given notice of a defamatory statement contained in the publications they sell.

Corrigan said transferring such distinctions to the online world could chill free speech because of the ease with which anyone could use the so-called “heckler’s veto,” thereby putting online publisher on notice and potentially opening them to liability.

Possibly leaving open a remedy for plaintiffs who are victims of particularly egregious conduct, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote in his concurring opinion that the law and the ruling should not be read to immunize Internet users who republish libelous speech if they have conspired with the originator of the statement.

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

25,000 Sign Petition to Legalize Pornography in Ukraine

An OnlyFans model’s petition to decriminalize pornography in Ukraine has amassed the 25,000 signatures required for official consideration by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

FSC Unpacks SCOTUS Age Verification Ruling in Webinar

The Free Speech Coalition conducted a public webinar Tuesday to help adult industry stakeholders understand the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FSC v. Paxton, and its potential implications.

UK Lawmaker Calls for Appointment of 'Porn Minister'

Baroness Gabrielle Bertin, the Conservative member of Parliament who recently convened a new anti-pornography task force, is calling for the appointment of a “minister for porn,” according to British news outlet The Guardian.

FSC Toasts Jeffrey Douglas for 30 Years of Service

n the very same evening when the adult industry was hit hard by the Supreme Court ruling supporting Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181, members of the Free Speech Coalition board, staff and supporters gathered to celebrate Jeffrey Douglas’ 30 years as board chair — a fitting reflection of his reputation as an eternal optimist.

FSC: Age-Verification Laws Go Into Effect in South Dakota, Georgia, Wyoming on July 1

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has published a statement regarding new age verification laws set to go into effect tomorrow in South Dakota, Georgia, and Wyoming.

FSC Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Texas AV Law

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has released a statement responding to last week's Supreme Court decision on FSC v. Paxton, the Texas age verification law.

UPDATED: Supreme Court Rules Against Adult Industry in Pivotal Texas AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, striking a blow against the online adult industry by ruling in support of Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

North Carolina Passes Extreme Bill Targeting Adult Sites

The North Carolina state legislature this week ratified a bill that would impose new regulations that industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

Supreme Court Ruling Due Friday in FSC v. Paxton AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Friday in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the adult industry trade association's challenge to Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

Ofcom: More Porn Providers Commit to Age Assurance Measures

A number of adult content providers operating in the U.K. have confirmed that they plan to introduce age checks in compliance with the Online Safety Act by the July 25 deadline, according to U.K. media regulator Ofcom.

Show More