Who is liable for internet libel?

Question

I was reading the info. about the Barrett v. Rosenthal case and here is a hypothetical situation.
1. Person a sends a libelous e-mail to person b.
2. Person b takes the libelous e-mail, with permission from person a, and posts it onto a non-interactive website (NOT a blog, NOT a chat room)
Who is legally responsible for libeling person c (person c is the one discussed in the libelous e-mails that were created by person a and posted onto the internet in a non-chat, non-forum, non-blogging website by person b)?
Thanks for your speculation!
P.S.--The key word here is "e-mail" Keep that in mind because that's where the libel started and was then posted on a NONINTERACTIVE website. I would prefer an attorney answer this question. Thanks!!!!!!

Answer 1

There is libel certainly. A said something libelous about C to B. This is communication to a third person of an untrue message (you called it "libelous" so I'm going to assume that it is both (a) untrue and (b) CAUSING harm to reputation or libel per-se. I'm also going to assume that the person wasn't privileged and that either the person libeled wasn't a public figure or the e-mailer wrote the e-mail with actual malice). Remember libel doesn't need to be published in a newspaper -- one third-party communication is enough (although getting damages is a different story).

Second, because B posted this to what can only be described as his own website. This was "publication" to a third party. Now, if the libeled person is a public figure, and the person was not posting with "actual malice" (i.e. knowing the information was false or posting with reckless disregard of the truth) B may not be liable so long as a jury would find that repeating the words of A didn't constitute "reckless disregard for the truth" (i.e. if A was a reliable source).

Now, here are the interesting questions:
(1) Can A be liable for damages arising from B's posting???
This is, to me, an issue of proximate causation, rather than an issue of libel law. If A could have reasonably assumed that the natural and probable consequence of A's libel would be the further publication by B (let's say B was Matt Drudge and A knew that he unscrupuously posts everything he hears), there would likely be liability not only for the (minute) damage from sending the e-mail, but also for the (perhaps much larger) damage from the website posting.

(2) Can the ISPs be liable? The ISP of A who sent the e-mail, or the ISP of B who posted on the website?
The first ISP (ISPa) probably can't because an e-mail is a medium in which people haev reasonable expectations of privacy, at least for libel law. The ISP could be no more liable than a paper manufacture could be liable if someone used their paper to write a libelous poster posted all over town. Now, ISPb perhaps could be liable if they did not comply with the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and similar federal laws that affect internet service providers' liability. Or the ISP may not be liable under state common law for the same reasons that ISPa wasn't liable -- they're a method of communication and not a message ORIGINATOR.
I'm also assuming that the NONINTERACTIVE website is owned by B, because how else could he "post" to it. Thus, you don't have to worry about a blogger being sued because someone hijacked the post and posted libelous messages.

Feel free to send me an e-mail about this if you have more questions

Answer 2

There is no libel because the act was only made on an email which is non-blog and not on a chat room. Thus, there was no publication for viewing by other people.