There have been two recent cases in the U.S. involving the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), one of which is of particular interest to Internet marketers. The two cases in question are Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc v. Craigslist, Inc. and Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal.Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under The Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., Case No. 06 C 0657 (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2006).
In this case, which was heard in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Court basically held that the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") immunizes the defendant, Craigslist, Inc. ("Craigslist") from liability for publishing housing ads authored by third parties that allegedly violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) ("FHA"). The Court determined that the immunity given to ISPs in Section 230(c)(1) of the act, whereby they cannot "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" also applied to Craigslist. Thus, because the allegedly illegal ads were authored by third parties, Craigslist could not be liable for having published them, even if they violated the FHA.
The Court also held that this immunity (under section 230(c)(1) of the CDA) only extends to claims seeking to hold an ISP liable as a publisher for content authored by third parties, and not to all claims arising out of the ISP's role in giving the public access to such content.
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal, S122953, ___ Cal.3d ____ (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 20, 2006).
In this case, reversing the Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court basically held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes a person from defamation claims when republishing defamatory statements in online newsgroups, even if that person had notice that the statements in question were defamatory in nature. [Supreme Court Opinion (PDF) (Word)] This ruling against liability for republication of defamatory material is in contrast to the traditional rules of defamation with regard to republication of material and also is in stark contrast to EU law.The background to this case is as follows. The case revolved around the actions of one Ilena Rosenthal who posted an email from a third party, regarding a Dr. Barrett, to an online newsgroup. Dr. Barrett sued for defamation but the case was initially dismissed. The California Court of Appeal overruled the dismissal but, in this case, the California Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's ruling, holding that Rosenthal was not liable.
As in the Craigslist case, the California Supreme Court held that the immunity given under Section 230 of the CDA also applies to "users" of such services. The term "users" was held to include people who use interactive computer services to access the Internet and who post or republish defamatory material authord by third parties on the Internet by such means. As the Court stated, "by declaring that no 'user' may be treated as a 'publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users."Struan Robertson, editor of out-law.com also highlighted how this case is inconsistent with U.S. copyright law: "[u]nder US law, you can sue your defamer but you can't force a third party to take the offending comments off-line. This is inconsistent with US law on copyright, where a statutory notice-and-takedown procedure gives effective remedies to rights holders."
Technorati Tags: cda, defamation, craigslist, cyberlaw
