Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online

[Guest guest]

Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online

 

Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 07:00 AM

Contributed by: Tommy

 

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041129212359249

 

Last week the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil

Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) filed a friend-of-the-court brief

in a case that could undermine a federal statute protecting the free speech of

bloggers, Internet service providers, and other individuals who use the Internet

to post content written by others.

 

The case in question is a libel suit filed against women's health advocate

Illena Rosenthal after she posted a controversial opinion piece on a Usenet news

group. The piece was written not by Rosenthal, but by Tim Bolen, a critic of

plaintiff Terry Polevoy.

 

In their brief, EFF and the ACLU argue that Section 230 of the federal

Telecommunications Act of 1996 protects Internet publishers from being held

liable for allegedly harmful comments written by others. Similar attempts to

eliminate the protections created by Section 230 have almost universally been

rejected, until a California Court of Appeals radically reinterpreted the

statute to allow lawsuits against non-authors. The case is being reviewed by the

California Supreme Court.

 

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Rosenthal is liable because posting the

comments makes her a " developer " of the information in question, and she

therefore becomes the legal equivalent of its creator for the purposes of the

lawsuit. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the implications for

free speech online are far-reaching. Bloggers could be held liable when they

quote other people's writing, and website owners could be held liable for what

people say in message boards on their sites. The end result is that many people

would simply cease to publish or host websites. In its brief, EFF argues that

" the specter of civil liability chills the speech " of Internet service providers

and users, and will inevitably lead to " protective self-censorship. "

 

" Every other jurisdiction addressing Section 230 has given effect to Congress'

broad protections and Internet speech has flourished as a result, " said EFF

Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. " The Court of Appeals upset this settled law and we

are simply asking the California Supreme Court to set things right. "

 

" Section 230 protects the ordinary people who use the Internet and email to pass

on items of interest written by others, free from the fear of potentially

ruinous lawsuits filed by those who don't like what was said about them, " said

ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick. " The vitality of the Internet would quickly

dissipate if the posting of content written by others created liability. The

impulse to self-censor would be unavoidable

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjoguest

DietaryTipsForHBP

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the all-new My – Try it today!