From CNN.com
Court OKs broad Web libel immunity
SAN JOSE, California (AP) — Web sites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The ruling in favor of free online expression was a victory for a San Diego woman who was sued by two doctors for posting an allegedly libelous e-mail on two Web sites.
Some of the Internet’s biggest names, including Amazon.com, America Online Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., took the defendant’s side out of concern that a ruling against her would expose them to liability.
…
“The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications,” Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the majority opinion. “Nevertheless … statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended.”
Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled.
And when I say good news for bloggers, I mean bloggers who let people post comments on their site. Self-proclaimed internet know-it-alls will still have to watch their backs when writing scathing reviews about how much Rupert Murdoch sucks ass for putting a low-life POS like O.J. Simpson on tv for a “hypothetical” tell-all on killing his wife and her lover, and then recinding it. And we all know Murdoch is a step-and-fetch republican who loves nothing more than propping up his info-tainment anchormen into the realm of government, ala Tony Snow. (that has nothing to do with the O.J. thing, it’s just a little piece of truth).Â
Is it ok that I said that? Fuzz, call the lawyers, just in case.