The case could have repercussions for news sites as it stands in direct opposition to libel law for print publications, where anyone repeating the libel can be sued.
In the first written ruling of its kind, James Richman, of the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, said that any person posting allegedly libellous information to news groups on the net is protected by law, as long as they were not the originator of the information.
He used section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has previously been applied to shield providers such as AOL from liability for statements written by its subscribers.
Experts in the field of internet law and libel offered widely differing views of the wisdom of Judge Richman's interpretation of the law.
Ian Ballon, an internet lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in California, said he believed that many courts, including Judge Richman's, have construed the scope of section 230 more broadly than Congress intended.
"Congress did not intend to provide a free pass to someone who acts with impunity and posts information that he or she knows to be false simply because they didn't write it," he said.
The case involved Ilena Rosenthal, director of the Humantics Foundation for Women and an alternative health advocate, who posted allegedly libellous statements about a lawyer and two doctors who investigate health fraud cases. Another defendant, Tim Bolan, also posted a claim that one of the doctors had stalked a producer of alternative health radio programs.
Mark Goldowitz, Rosenthal's attorney, said: "I think the decision is important because it extends the sphere of freedom of speech on the internet beyond the hard-copy world," he said.
He added that the internet often provided the only vehicle for people to criticise powerful individuals or corporations.
For more information, please click here
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
