November 20, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
media@aclu.org
In Barrett v. Rosenthal, Court Says Internet Service Providers Are Not Liable
for Posting Opinions of Others
SAN FRANCISCO -- In a victory for
free speech on the Internet, the California Supreme Court ruled today that no
provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable for
putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else. In
doing so, the Court overruled an earlier decision by the Court of
Appeal.
Today's ruling affirms that blogs, websites, listservs, and
ISPs such as Yahoo!, as well as individuals such as defendant Ilena Rosenthal,
are protected under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA),
which explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
by another information content provider."
"By reaffirming that
Congress intended to grant protection under Section 230 to those who provide a
forum for the views of others, the Court has ensured that the Internet will
remain a vibrant forum for debate and the free exchange of ideas," said Ann
Brick, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, which filed a brief in the case. "Any other ruling would have
inevitably made speech on the Internet less free."
The lawsuit,
Barrett v. Rosenthal, concerned postings on Internet newsgroups by Ilena
Rosenthal, head of an international support group for women harmed by breast
implants, who was one of several defendants in this high-profile Internet
defamation case. In 2001, the Alameda Superior Court found that Section
230 of the CDA protected Rosenthal from liability for her republication on the
Internet of a document written by someone else.
Section 230 has
been an important means of encouraging the growth of a wide variety of "forum"
sites on the Internet, including websites, listservs, and
newsgroups. Sometimes these sites are hosted by large ISPs such as
Yahoo! or America Online, but just as often they are hosted by an individual who
simply wants to provide an opportunity for others to express their views on a
particular subject.
The issue raised in the case was whether
Section 230's protection applies to individuals who frequently use the Internet
to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an e-mail
written by someone else or, in this case, posting an email from someone else to
a newsgroup.
The ACLU of Northern California and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a friend-of-the-court amicus brief in
the California Supreme Court arguing that Section 230 means what it says and
applies to "users" of interactive computer services as well as "providers."
"Courts have consistently interpreted Section 230 to provide broad
protections for the platforms upon which free speech has flourished online,"
said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "By reversing the Court of Appeal, the
California Supreme Court has brought California back in line with other
jurisdictions and reaffirmed the critical rule that the soapbox is not liable
for what the speaker has said."
In January 2004, the Court of
Appeal for the First District overruled the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit
filed against an activist for her re-publication on the Internet of someone
else's words. The court refused to extend any protection under Section
230, which was expressly enacted "to promote the continued development of the
Internet and other interactive computer services," in a manner "unfettered by
Federal or State regulation."
"The Supreme Court's opinion
strengthens protection for speech on the Internet," said Mark Goldowitz,
director of the California Anti-SLAPP Project and counsel for Rosenthal.
"Justice Corrigan's opinion protects against the 'heckler's veto' chilling
speech on the Internet."
The decision is online at:
www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/asset_upload_file605_4198.pdfThe
ACLU/EFF legal papers are online at:
www.aclunc.org/cases/cases_to_watch/barrett_v._rosenthal.shtml
