PressEthic

On November 20, CNN reported that websites cannot be sued for libelous information published by third parties, according to a California Supreme Court ruling. This decision could have serious effects on the world of journalism and media: free online expression is taking precedence over libel material.

The case centers on an opinion piece sent via e-mail to Ilena Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate who runs various message boards and promotes alternative medicine.

The scathing missive, written by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy, of Canada, of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various invectives directed at Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett, of Pennsylvania. The two doctors operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds.

To me, this case did not differ from any other libel case in that it fell under the same criteria. The information was both false and defamatory, the plaintiff could prove damages, it was published, and the two doctors were most certainly identified by name in the publication. While I do not think the website should be held accountable for a third party posting, Rosenthal should certainly be held accountable for her actions as any other libel case. The material had the same effect on the plaintiffs as it would if the material were published in a newspaper or announced on television.

The case was not weighed or decided using the criteria of libel law because the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protected Rosenthal's right to publish the information. However, changes that the internet has undergone in the last 10 years have made this law obsolete in my opinion. Since the court does not have any power in the matter, Congress will probably have to reevaluate this law and take a look at its new implications.

While I most certainly advocate the freedom of expression online, I am not sure this freedom should go so far as to allow users to publish anything they want, even false material. This would be anarchy. But the internet is definitely more difficult or near impossible to regulate these days, with the number of user-based sites increasing exponentially. However, I think that with the breadth of the internet, it should be regulated even more because of the number of people who see it. More people have access to the internet than printed newspapers. The reputation of the the doctors will be even more damaged because of the nature of the internet.

Hopefully, this case will at least make internet users more aware of the flaws in user-based sites and material posted by third parties. It proves that it's necessary for us to be skeptical of the information on the internet, and it definitely shows the drawback in relying on such user-based sites. Internet users have to decide which outweighs the other: freedom of expression or the need to filter out wrong or misleading information. As users rely on these sites more and more, this pending issue will come to the forefront of the mainstream.