| Revision as of 23:47, 4 January 2007 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,334 edits →Lower court rulings: by his own admission, and he was Hulda Clark's spin doctor, with plenty of receipts of payments from her examined under deposition← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:42, 5 January 2007 edit undoPeter M Dodge (talk | contribs)4,982 edits Revert to revision 98522214 dated 2007-01-04 23:22:32 by Shot info using popupsNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| == Lower court rulings == | == Lower court rulings == | ||
| At issue in ''Barrett v. Clark'' was an e-mail sent by Patrick Timothy Bolen, a |
At issue in ''Barrett v. Clark'' was an e-mail sent by Patrick Timothy Bolen, a ] for ] practitioners. In the e-mail, Bolen described Barrett as "arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded; emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report, and other unspecified acts.)" Bolen's email described Polevoy as "dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic remarks."<ref name="supreme"/> | ||
| The trial court dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California anti-] 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." <ref>California Superior Court, Alameda County, ''Barrett v. Clark: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE'', 2001 WL 881259, 2001 Extra LEXIS 46. </ref> The court further ordered that all three plaintiffs pay Rosenthal's attorney's fees. | The trial court dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California anti-] 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." <ref>California Superior Court, Alameda County, ''Barrett v. Clark: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE'', 2001 WL 881259, 2001 Extra LEXIS 46. </ref> The court further ordered that all three plaintiffs pay Rosenthal's attorney's fees. | ||
Revision as of 01:42, 5 January 2007
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Barrett v. Rosenthal is a 2006 California Supreme Court case concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 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 for "libel" and "conspiracy to libel," for 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 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.
Section 230
Section 230 (c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others. Specifically, Section 230 states, "No 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."
Lower court rulings
At issue in Barrett v. Clark was an e-mail sent by Patrick Timothy Bolen, a publicist for alternative medicine practitioners. In the e-mail, Bolen described Barrett as "arrogant, bizarre, closed-minded; emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, intellectually dishonest, a dishonest journalist, sleazy, unethical, a quack, a thug, a bully, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, extortion, filing a false police report, and other unspecified acts.)" Bolen's email described Polevoy as "dishonest, closed-minded, emotionally disturbed, professionally incompetent, unethical, a quack, a fanatic, a Nazi, a hired gun for vested interests, the leader of a subversive organization, and engaged in criminal activity (conspiracy, stalking of females, and other unspecified acts) and has made anti-Semitic remarks."
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." 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.
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, 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 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
- ^ Supreme Court of the State of California, Alameda County, Barrett v. Rosenthal: COURT OPINION, Ct.App. 1/2 A096451. available online
- California Superior Court, Alameda County, Barrett v. Clark: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE, 2001 WL 881259, 2001 Extra LEXIS 46. available online
- Supreme Court of the State of California, Barrett v. Clark: PETITION FOR REVIEW available online
- "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]