SAN FRANCISCO — Internet users and providers cannot be held liable for posting defamatory material written by someone else, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.
"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the court. But, she added, immunity "serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation."
Monday's decision was consistent with holdings by many federal appeals courts and one other state high court. "The courts are now uniform," said Ann Brick, who represented the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California in the case.
But attorneys on both sides of the case said the California Supreme Court went further than other courts by giving immunity to all Internet users except the original author.
"What you couldn't put in your print newspaper, you can put in your Internet newspaper," said Christopher E. Grell, who represented two doctors who said they were defamed. "The notion of fact-checking and verifying things doesn't apply to the Internet."
Mark Goldowitz, the lawyer for the defendant, cited a line in the ruling that the decision brought "the law of libel from the Gutenberg era to the cyberspace era."
Unlike hard-copy publications, the Internet allows users to "immediately respond and correct any harm," said Goldowitz.
"Not everyone has a printing press, but everyone can start a blog or post on a news group."
Although the court did not specifically address media websites, lawyers on both sides of the case said the ruling would protect newspapers and other media that report defamatory remarks by third parties on their websites but not on their pages or on air.
The decision overturned a Court of Appeal ruling and threw out a lawsuit claiming that Ilena Rosenthal, a San Diego activist for breast implant victims, defamed Dr. Stephen J. Barrett and Dr. Terry Polevoy on the websites of two news groups.
Barrett and Polevoy operated websites aimed at exposing health fraud in various kinds of alternative medicine. They said Rosenthal, a supporter of alternative medicine, made the postings even after she was told they were libelous.
Rosenthal wrote in one posting that Barrett, a retired psychiatrist in Philadelphia, was "arrogant, bizarre, closed minded; emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest
