California Court Ruling Favors Online Speech

isomeme writes: "A California court has ruled that posting another person's libelous text online is not a separate act of libel. See this article for the full scoop. One interesting twist is that the decision was justified in part by provisions of the much-denigrated Communications Decency Act (CDA). I'm not sure if this ruling is a good thing or not; as the opposing attorney pointed out, it seems to provide a loophole for libel, protecting online speech more than other varieties."

If you can't quote it, how can you report it?

[rthille]

Why should online be different from print? Can you report on a libel case and reproduce the libelous statement in print? If so, then why should online differ?

Interesting...

[camusflage]

Where does it end?

By that, if I post in a /. article that someone told me RobLimo likes goatse.cx, am I protected, or need I be a "real" journalist? What if I am a real journalist, and I report that "an anonymous source" told me that RobLimo visits goatse.cx every day? In order to constitute libel, would I need to report that the anonymous source told me RobLimo visits goatse.cx, and that I'm sure he likes it?

The mind reels from the possibilities for mischief and mayhem.

Re:CDA

[isomeme]

Wasn't the CDA struck down though?

Certain sections of it were. Others remain in force.

--

CDA

[polychronopolous]

One interesting twist is that the decision was justified in part by provisions of the much-denigrated Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Wasn't the CDA struck down though?

---
MSFT merges with AOLTW: