Barrett v. Rosenthal


Barrett v. Rosenthal

"Barrett v. Rosenthal" [40 Cal.4th 33, 146 P.3d 510, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 2006).] is a 2006 California Supreme Court case concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.Supreme Court of the State of California, Alameda County, "Barrett v. Rosenthal: Court Opinion", Ct.App. 1/2 A096451. [http://casp.net/cases/RosenthalSC.html available online] ] It is an appeal of "Barrett v. Clark", a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. They were accused of libel and conspiracy to libel, for publishing or republishing allegedly defamatory statements on the internet. All but one of the statements republished by Rosenthal were determined by the lower courts to be non-defamatory opinion. The sole issue in "Barrett v. Rosenthal" was whether or not Rosenthal was liable for rebroadcasting one statement which accused Polevoy of stalking. In a unanimous decision, the court held that defendant Ilena Rosenthal, a "user of interactive computer services", was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Lower court rulings

At issue in "Barrett v. Clark" was an e-mail sent by Tim Bolen, a publicist for alternative medicine practitioners, that attacked Barrett and Polevoy, medical doctors who publicly criticize what they consider quackery. The defendants had published or republished the e-mail on the internet.California Superior Court, Alameda County, "Barrett v. Clark: Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike", 2001 WL 881259, 2001 Extra LEXIS 46. [http://www.casp.net/cases/barrett.html available online] ] The trial court dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California anti-SLAPP statute, which is intended to stop lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances," though it has later allowed the case to continue against her co-defendants. The court further ordered that all three plaintiffs pay Rosenthal's attorney's fees.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal against Grell and Barrett, but vacated the decision as against Polevoy. The court held that Section 230 did not protect Rosenthal for one statement she had reposted on two newsgroups, regarding Polevoy's alleged "stalking" of a Canadian talk show host. The court ruled that Rosenthal, as a "distributor", could be held liable under Section 230 for content republished after receiving notice of a potentially defamatory statement, just as vendors of traditional media can be.

Rosenthal petitioned the California Supreme Court to hear the case, and the court granted a "writ of certiorari" to review the case in April, 2004. [Supreme Court of the State of California, "Barrett v. Clark: Petition for Review" [http://www.casp.net/cases/sc_pet1.html available online] ]

California Supreme Court decision

The California Supreme Court overturned the lower court in November, 2006, in a landmark decision that is the first to interpret Section 230 defamation immunity as providing immunity to an individual internet "user" who is not a provider. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a number of internet corporations — including Google, Yahoo!, and AOL — filed briefs on behalf of the defendant, [" [http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15446330.htm California justices frown on Internet libel lawsuits] " by David Kravets (Associated Press), September 5, 2006. Accessed November 25, 2006.] [ [http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/20041124_BarrettAmicusFinal.pdf Brief of "Amici Curiae"] ] arguing that only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable.

In the majority opinion, Justice Corrigan observed that the plain language of Section 230 shows that "Congress did not intend for an internet user to be treated differently than an internet provider." Both had immunity from liability for the republication of defamatory content on the internet.

The court agreed that "subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech." (citing "Zeran v. America Online, Inc." (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331-333). Moreover, the court agreed with Rosenthal in the interpretation of congressional intent:

The congressional intent of fostering free speech on the internet supported the extension of Section 230 immunity to active individual users. It is they who provide much of the 'diversity of political discourse,' the pursuit of 'opportunities for cultural development,' and the exploration of 'myriad avenues for intellectual activity' that the statute was meant to protect.

However, the court also acknowledged that blanket immunity for the redistribution of defamatory statements on the Internet has "disturbing implications." Although Plaintiffs are free under Section 230 to sue the originator of a defamatory Internet publication, "any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno also suggested that immunity would not extend to an online publisher or distributor who conspires with an original content provider to defame. However, in this case, there was provided no proof of a conspiracy to defame.

References

See also

* Slander and libel

External links

* [http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/about/about_news_11-21-06.htm Justices hand victory to free speech online] - Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
* [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1164103520282 Calif. Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers] - Jessie Seyfer, Law.com
* [http://news.com.com/How+Web+providers+dodged+a+big+legal+bullet/2010-1030_3-6144464.html How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet] - Eric J. Sinrod, CNET News.com
* [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/06/BAG9BL01791.DTL High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case] - Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Stephen Barrett — Infobox Person image size = 150px name = Stephen J. Barrett, MD caption = birth date = 1933 birth place = New York City death date = death place = occupation = Psychiatrist, Author, Consumer Advocate, Webmaster website = Stephen J. Barrett (born… …   Wikipedia

  • Michael Barrett (baseball) — Michael Barrett Michael Barrett signing autographs for fans in 2006 New York Mets No …   Wikipedia

  • Online service provider law — is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers, like the Wikipedia and internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service… …   Wikipedia

  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer… …   Wikipedia

  • United States defamation law — The origins of United States defamation law pre date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. (Previous English… …   Wikipedia

  • Botánicos por la abreviatura del autor — Anexo:Botánicos por la abreviatura del autor Saltar a navegación, búsqueda Autor botánico es quien por primera vez describe una planta. Su nombre científico viene dado por su nomenclatura binomial seguida de la abreviatura del autor/es botánico/s …   Wikipedia Español

  • Anexo:Botánicos por la abreviatura del autor — Autor botánico es quien por primera vez describe una planta. Su nombre científico viene dado por su nomenclatura binomial seguida de la abreviatura del autor/es botánico/s. Así Aconitum anthora L. indica que fue nombrada por Carlos Linneo, el… …   Wikipedia Español

  • Quackwatch — logo Formation 1969 (website in 1996) Type Non profit organization Location USA Official langu …   Wikipedia

  • New Zealand records in athletics — The following are the national records in athletics in New Zealand maintained by New Zealand s national athletics federation: Athletics New Zealand (ANZ). For unknown reasons ANZ does not recognise a multitude of best marks set by New Zealand… …   Wikipedia

  • Episodios de Smallville — Anexo:Episodios de Smallville Saltar a navegación, búsqueda El contenido siguiente muestra una lista de episodios de la serie de televisión Smallville, el cual se empezó a emitir originalmente en Estados Unidos el 16 de octubre de 2001. Las… …   Wikipedia Español