The California Supreme Court handed down their decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal(PDF) today. (H/t to Kos.) Basically, the court says that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects website operators from liability for defamatory statements made by others and for statements that the website owner merely reproduces. In those cases, the defamed party only has a cause of action against the original author of the statement.
We granted review to decide whether section 230 confers immunity on “distributors.” Because this case involves the liability of an individual rather than a service provider, we asked the parties to address the definition of the statutory term “user.” We also requested briefing on whether the immunity analysis is affected if a user engages in active rather than passive conduct. We conclude that section 230 prohibits “distributor” liability for Internet publications. We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.
Sweet! Any of you readers care to make some defamatory statements? It ain’t my problem. But on a more serious note, this is a great victory for the Internet. Whether this reading of the CDA holds up nationally is a different question, though.
, it comes out tomorrow.