Passing On Third Party Emails Officially Not Defamation
from the phew dept
Last year, a US Court of Appeals ruled that someone just passing on an email accusing someone else of a crime was not guilty of defamation. While this ruling got plenty of misplaced attention when someone (erroneously) interpreted it to mean bloggers could libel anyone they wanted, it was still an important statement about the liability of third party publishing done online. Now, the US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case, meaning that the Appeals Court ruling stands, and third parties are free of libel or defamation claims for items written by others. While I doubt it will stop people from trying to file lawsuits for third party comments on sites (which we've been threatened with way too many times) at least it gives people a clear ruling they can point to in telling those people to go away.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not so encompassing
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, there is no inherent national significance. As noted here, "decisions from other circuits are 'merely persuasive.' "
A different Circuit Court could come to a different conclusion in the future. This is called a "split in the circuits." If that happens the Supreme Court very well might hear the later case in order to resolve the split.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so encompassing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so encompassing
That's ok, lots of people don't seem to realize that New Mexico is a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so encompassing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so encompassing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]