温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/barrett-v-rosenthal
点击访问原文链接

Barrett v Rosenthal - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Barrett v Rosenthal - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Barrett v Rosenthal Reference: 20/11/2006

Court: Supreme Court of California

Judge: George C.J. and Corrigan, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno J.J.

Date of judgment: 20 Nov 2006 Summary: Libel – Liability of Website Providers - Immunity under US law

Download: Download this judgment

Facts The Defendant, Ilena Rosenthal, a women’s health advocate who ran various message boards promoting alternative medicine, was sent an email by Tim Bolen which accused Dr Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various defamatory allegations directed at Polevoy and his colleague, Dr Barrett. These two doctors operated websites devoted to exposing health frauds. Rosenthal posted the email to two newsgroups, upon which Polevoy and Barrett sued her, the author and others for libel. The Claimants alleged that Rosenthal republished the information after being warned that it was false and defamatory. The trial court ruled that Rosenthal’s actions were protected under s.230 Communications Decency Act 1996, which provided broad immunity to Internet publishers from being held liable for allegedly harmful comments written by others. On appeal the California Court of Appeal held that the Defendant was not shielded from liability as she was a distributor of the information.

Issue (i) Whether s.230 Communications Decency Act 1996, conferred immunity on distributors (ii) whether the Defendant, being an individual Internet user as opposed to a service provider, was protected by the immunity and (iii) whether a distinction was to be drawn between active and passive use.

Held Reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision, the State Supreme Court held that by its terms s.230 exempts all Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The Court also found that individual users of interactive computer services were afforded statutory protection and that no practical or principled distinction could be drawn between active and passive use.

Comment Liability for website owners and bloggers is another area where the law in the UK (and Europe) is very different from that in the US. This decision essentially recognises that under US Federal Law websites will be free of liability for what is posted by third parties. In the UK, under s.1 Defamation Act 1996, they would risk losing the statutory defence under the section if they continued to publish defamatory material after being put on notice by a complaint – see Godfrey v Demon Internet [2001] QB 201. For ISPs, who merely facilitate the website hosting and have no editorial control, Bunt v Tilley offers them effective immunity from suit.

Links Libel ruling boosts net providers - BBC News

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录