Victory for bloggers in libel ruling

In a victory for bloggers, newsgroup participants and other web publishers, the California Supreme Court has ruled that individual internet users cannot be held liable for republishing defamatory statements written by others.

The unanimous ruling appears to be the first to make clear that a 1996 US law called the Communications Decency Act protects not only providers but also users of online services who redistribute content.

Got two seconds?

Make your voice heard - take our latest poll.

Earlier court rulings had established that Section 230 of that statute shields companies such as AOL and eBay from such liability, provided that they make good faith efforts to restrict access to material that could be considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".

By passing that law, Congress "has comprehensively immunised republication by individual internet users", intending "to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation", the justices concluded in their majority opinion penned by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan.

The justices acknowledged that "recognising broad immunity for defamatory republications on the internet has some troubling consequences". But unless Congress revises the law, anyone who claims to be defamed by an internet posting may seek damages only from the "original source of the statement", they wrote.

That protection should not extend, however, to users who conspire with the originators of libellous content, Associate Justice Carlos Moreno wrote in a concurring opinion.

Anne Broache writes for CNET News.com