She similarly described Polevoy, who works in Canada, and accused him of making antiSemitic remarks.
An Alameda County Superior Court judge threw out the doctors' lawsuit against Rosenthal, ruling that her postings involved the public interest and for the most part contained no assertions that could be proven false.
But the court determined that one statement in an article Rosenthal received from Tim Bolen, subtitled "Opinion by Tim Bolen," was problematic. The article accused Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer.
The trial court decided nonetheless that Rosenthal could not be held liable because she had not written the original posting.
A libel case against Bolen for first making the stalking allegation is pending. Bolen describes himself as a crisis management consultant and health advocate.
In ruling for Rosenthal, the California Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Although many courts have ruled on the provision, the Rosenthal case was the first in which an Internet user with no responsibility for the site carrying the posting claimed federal immunity.
The court explained that Internet defamation law differs from that of other media.
"Book, newspaper or magazine publishers are liable for defamation on the same basis as authors," Corrigan wrote. "Book sellers, news vendors or other 'distributors' ... may only be held liable if they knew or had reason to know of a publication's defamatory content."
Congress "chose to protect even the most active Internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third-party content," she wrote.
She also cited practical reasons for ruling in favor of Internet freedom. If California permitted defamation suits against those who post others' work, the state could be inundated with lawsuits.
"Adopting a rule of liability ... would be an open invitation to forum shopping by defamation plaintiffs," Corrigan wrote.
She said the threat of liability also would reduce the flow of ideas on the Internet. "The volume and range of Internet communications make the 'heckler's veto' a real threat," Corrigan said.
Grell, who represents the doctors, said he has not yet decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Noting that the court twice referred to blanket immunity as troubling, the lawyer said Congress should now amend the law to increase Internet accountability.
The case generated many friend of the court briefs, including those from Google, EBay, Microsoft Corp. and law professors who specialize in Internet law. They all sided with Rosenthal.
Congress intended "to promote a vibrant and robust Internet fostering the principles of free speech," Michael Kwun, Google's senior litigation counsel, said in praising the court's action.
Rosenthal did not return a call for comment Monday but said on a website that she was gratified by the ruling. She described the litigation as "exhausting" and said it was "intended to silence my voice and exhaust my resources."
maura.dolan@latimes.com
Times staff writer Chris Gaither contributed to this report.
\o7
\f7
