Sites not liable for third-party posts, finds ruling
David Johnson November 20th, 2006
The gatekeepers’ legal worries about user-contributed content have one less leg to stand on after the California Supreme Court ruled that Web sites cannot be sued for libel for publishing inflamatory information supplied by other parties. Cory adds: This is a big ruling with profound implications for citizen journalism. The court ruled that people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement. A big victory, although I’m sure we’re not hearing the end of this. Safran adds: This is a debate Cory and I have disagreed upon for years. (Not the liability issues, but simply what a court would rule.) I am happily proven wrong, and give full credit to my good friend, the Honorable Representative from Seattle. Johnson adds: … I got nothin’. Just wanted to have the last word after all the addenda.
6 Comments Add your own
1. thelosangeleschannel | November 21st, 2006 at 6:08 am
this is only the beginning!
this ruling will no doubt be ushered all the way to the us supreme court. its findings (at least in how you have presented them) will be looked at by the phalanx of youtube/google lawyers as a step in the right direction.
what’s the difference if i upload an insult to someone’s good name or a video clip?
2. David Johnson | November 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
not sure just what you are talking about here, but this ruling has to do with original content posted to a site/community. if you film yourself and say something inflamatory, then my site is not liable if you post the clip there. if you copy a tv show and post the video on my site, you are violating the copyright of the original producers of the show.
apples and oranges.
3. thedetroitchannel | November 21st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
not really.
but that is what i luv about LR…put out the bait and someone will bite!
not apples and oranges at all.
the onus of guilt continues to burden THE POSTER, not the site. i’m fairly certain this is the spin youtube-like site’s lawyers will read into this ruling. if they, like craig, post guidelines and self-police to their ability, it will be the person uploading the content (whether it be opinion or not) who is ultimately responsible.
now you see my point?
4. Ed | November 21st, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I do. But you’re wrong.
This would cover you videotaping your self libeling someone.
There’s mountains of precedent having to do with copyright law already out there, and none of it looks good for the hosting site.
5. thedetroitchannel | November 21st, 2006 at 9:11 pm
ed,
did i not say “this is the beginning”???
you chip away at precedent, not chop.
thanks, and enjoy your thanksgiving everybody!!!
6. jonny662 | December 8th, 2006 at 3:03 am
jonny617
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed