Can someone please tell me more about this cal. law case?

Question

Question :Can someone give me the cliff notes version of this cal. court case?
I really don't want to read 40 freakin pages of case files. I just want to know the key points of this case: Can someone who knows something about this case give me a case brief of sorts? It's about the 3rd party comments posted on a website. I believe this is saying that the website is NOT responsible. But would like to know as much as poss.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF

Answer 1

Here are the Westlaw headnotes and key numbers. They should basically summarize it for you. Just by skimming through the headnotes I notice that yes, blogs, websites and the people who "use," them are immune from common law defamation causes of action. So to make it SHORT AND SWEET: the website and the 3rd party are immune under the California Communications Decency Act (CDA) - - so they are not responsible. There are no Cliff notes for law, but Westlaw makes summaries of cases so that people can find the cases and see if they are helpful or not more easily. This is how people study the law.

Background: Two doctors brought action alleging libel, libel per se, and conspiracy against alternative health proponent, who had posted messages to newsgroups on the Internet referring to doctors as "quacks," and who had also redistributed an e-mail message alleging that one of the doctors had stalked women. The Superior Court, Alameda County, No. 833021-5, James A. Richman, J., granted defendant's special motion to strike complaint under anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. Doctors appealed. The Court of Appeal vacated in part and affirmed in part. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Corrigan, J., held that:
(1) Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) immunity provision applied to distributors as well as publishers;
(2) term "user" in CDA immunity provision applied to individual alternative health proponent;
(3) CDA immunity provision made no distinction between active and passive users of Internet; and
(4) doctors were limited to pursuing originator of allegedly defamatory publications.

Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.

Moreno, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Opinion, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142, superseded.


[1]

302 Pleading
302XVI Motions
302k351 Striking Out Pleading or Defense
302k358 k. Frivolous Pleading. Most Cited Cases

Web sites accessible to the public, such as Internet "newsgroups," are "public forums" for purposes of the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 425.16.

[1]

379 Torts
379V Other Miscellaneous Torts
379k437 k. Resort to or Conduct of Legal Remedies. Most Cited Cases

Web sites accessible to the public, such as Internet "newsgroups," are "public forums" for purposes of the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 425.16.

[2]

92 Constitutional Law
92V Personal, Civil and Political Rights
92k90 Freedom of Speech and of the Press
92k90.1 Particular Expressions and Limitations
92k90.1(5) k. Libel and Slander; False Reports. Most Cited Cases

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) immunity provision, "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," prohibits imposition of defamation liability on distributors as well as publishers; by granting immunity, Congress intended to promote self-regulation of Internet, distinction between publisher and distributor has less meaning on Internet, and subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 537; 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional Law, § 19; Cal. Jur. 3d, Assault and Other Wilful Torts, § 158; Annot., Liability of Internet Service Provider for Internet or E-mail Defamation (2000) 84 A.L.R.5th 169.


[2]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) immunity provision, "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," prohibits imposition of defamation liability on distributors as well as publishers; by granting immunity, Congress intended to promote self-regulation of Internet, distinction between publisher and distributor has less meaning on Internet, and subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

[3]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

"Primary publishers," such as book, newspaper, or magazine publishers, are liable for common law defamation on the same basis as authors, but book sellers, news vendors, or other "distributors" may be held liable only if they knew or had reason to know of a publication's defamatory content.

[4]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k23 Publication
237k23.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k26.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

"Publication" is a necessary element of all defamation claims, and includes every repetition and distribution of a defamatory statement.

[5]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Immunity conferred on a provider or user of an interactive computer service by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) applies even when self-regulation of the service is unsuccessful, or completely unattempted. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

[6]

361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k213 Extrinsic Aids to Construction
361k220 k. Legislative Construction. Most Cited Cases

Ordinarily, subsequent legislative history is given little weight in statutory interpretation.

[7]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Distributors are liable for defamation not merely upon receiving notice from a third party, but also if they independently knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement.

[8]

106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(G) Rules of Decision
106k88 Previous Decisions as Controlling or as Precedents
106k97 Decisions of United States Courts as Authority in State
Courts
106k97(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

While state courts are not bound by decisions of the lower federal courts, even on federal questions, they are persuasive and entitled to great weight.

[9]

106 Courts
106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(G) Rules of Decision
106k88 Previous Decisions as Controlling or as Precedents
106k97 Decisions of United States Courts as Authority in State Courts
106k97(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Where lower federal precedents are divided or lacking, state courts must necessarily make an independent determination of federal law, but where the decisions of the lower federal courts on a federal question are both numerous and consistent, state courts should hesitate to reject their authority.

[10]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Term "user" in Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) provision granting broad immunity to provider or user of an interactive computer service, applied equally to individual alternative health proponent who reposted information on Internet as it applied to Internet service providers. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

[11]

361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k212 Presumptions to Aid Construction
361k212.6 k. Words Used. Most Cited Cases

When construing a federal statute, the court must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that its ordinary meaning expresses the legislative purpose.

[12]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) provision granting broad immunity to provider or user of an interactive computer service is not restricted in its application to passive users who only receive information and remove offensive material from Internet, but also extends to active users who post or republish material. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

[13]

237 Libel and Slander
237I Words and Acts Actionable, and Liability Therefor
237k26 Repetition
237k28 k. By Others in General. Most Cited Cases

Since Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) provides broad immunity to provider or user of an interactive computer service, doctors who claimed defamation in connection with actions of alternative health proponent, who had posted messages to newsgroups on the Internet referring to doctors as "quacks," and who had also redistributed an e-mail message alleging that one of the doctors had stalked women, were limited to pursuing actions against originators of allegedly defamatory publications. Communications Decency Act of 1996, § 509, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.