Court Rules That Internet Re-Posting is Protected Speech, Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Breast Implant Activist as Meritless

AlkalizeForHealth

 Home
 Contents
 Library

 

The information on this web site is provided for educational purposes only. Please see Disclaimer, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease."
- Thomas Edison

Cancer is a political problem more than it is a medical problem.

Read what Ilena Rosenthal has to say about breast implants.

 

See also:

Complaint regarding Quackwatch,

 Dallas News Story,

 and

National Council Against Health Fraud
.

 

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Editor's note: This page contains three items: a press release, followed by a newspaper article on the same subject, and a court ruling.

http://www.eff.org/sc/Barrett_v_Clark/20010730_eff_ruling_pr.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release


Court Rules That Internet Re-Posting Is Protected Speech

Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Breast Implant Activist as Meritless


For Immediate Release: July 30, 2001

Contact:

Lee Tien, EFF Senior Staff Attorney,
 tien@eff.org,
 415 436 9333 x102

Mark Goldowitz, Director, California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP),
Ý mg@casp.net,
 510-835-0850 x305

Ilena Rosenthal, defendant in Barrett v. Clark,
breast implant awareness activist, Director, Humantics Foundation,
 ilena2000@hotmail.com,
  858-270-0680

Oakland, CA - In a trail-blazing 27-page order, Alameda Superior Court Judge James A. Richman dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed against a breast implant awareness activist, finding that it was a meritless SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The court held that a 1996 federal law protects individuals from civil liability for posting to an Internet newsgroup a statement created by another.

Ilena Rosenthal, Director of the Humantics Foundation in San Diego, was sued for defamation based on her postings on Internet newsgroups. On July 25, 2001, Judge Richman granted Rosenthal's motion to dismiss the complaint against her as a meritless SLAPP. Two self-proclaimed "Quackbusters," Stephen Barrett, M.D., of Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Terry Polevoy, M.D., of Canada, joined by their attorney and co-plaintiff, Christopher Grell, of Oakland, California, filed suit against the activist. Judge Richman found that none of the plaintiffs had valid claims against Rosenthal. He ruled that Rosenthal's statements calling Barrett and Polevoy "quacks," and Barrett "arrogant" and a "bully" who tried to "extort" her, were not actionable because "they do not contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment."

Judge Richman further found that only one statement by Rosenthal was arguably defamatory -- a document written by someone else which Rosenthal re-posted to an Internet newsgroup. Judge Richman held that this statement by Rosenthal was protected under section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law Congress enacted in 1996 expressly "to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services," which Congress declared should be "unfettered by Federal or State regulation."

Judge Richman held that section 230 of the CDA "provides immunity to users, as well as providers, of interactive computer services." He found that Rosenthal, "as a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, . . . is not the publisher or speaker" of statements made by a third person. Thus, Judge Richman concluded, "she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the Internet. She is immune."

Lee Tien, Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading Internet civil liberties organization, said "in enacting section 230, Congress tried to protect free speech on the Internet from chilling threats of costly litigation. This decision will help achieve that goal and marks a solid victory for free expression. Internet speech would be stifled if individuals could be found liable for the defamatory statements of others."

Mark Goldowitz, counsel for defendant Rosenthal and the Director of the California Anti-SLAPP Project, said, "Judge Richman's opinion is significant. To my knowledge, this is the first court to rule that Internet re-posting is immune from civil liability under federal law. This ruling greatly advances freedom of speech on the Internet. Also, it is very rare for a trial court judge to issue anything even close to a 27-page order."

Ilena Rosenthal, one of several defendants named in this high-profile Internet libel case, heads an international support group for women harmed by breast implants. Rosenthal believes that this suit, one of several the so-called "Quackbusters" have filed against critics of their tactics, has been used to intimidate and threaten others into silence for fear of being named as a "Doe" in this lawsuit. "They are a dominant threat to alternative and complementary medical practices and practitioners," Rosenthal said. "Their campaigns obstruct health freedom and attempt to chill the voices of their critics and opponents."

For a copy of Judge Richman's 27-page opinion in Barrett v. Clark:

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/Court%20Documents/Rosenthal%20SLAPP/Rosenthal%20Ruling.htm

(For discussion of section 230 of the CDA, see pages 17-20.)

For a copy of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230:

http://www.casp.net/

For a copy of memoranda filed in support of Rosenthal's special motion to strike:

http://www.casp.net/

About EFF:


The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to Web sites in the world:

http://www.eff.org/

About CASP:

The California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP) is a public interest organization dedicated to the eradication of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in California. Founded in 1991, CASP has led a broad coalition for anti-SLAPP legislation, which resulted in enactment of California's pioneering legislation to protect against SLAPPs in 1992, and amendments to strengthen the law's protections in 1997 and 1999. CASP monitors implementation of the anti-SLAPP law and assists SLAPP targets and their attorneys with use of the law. For more information about CASP and SLAPPs:

http://www.casp.net/



About defendant Ilena Rosenthal:

For more information about defendant Ilena Rosenthal and her work on breast implant awareness, email her at ilena2000@hotmail.com. See also:

Breast Implants: The Myths, The Facts, The Women, by Ilena Rosenthal
(information booklet)
http://www.internet-connect.com/implants/dowchemresults1.html

"Breast Implants, America's Silent Epidemic," in Total Health Magazine,
Nov.-Dec. 2000)
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm

Note: EFF has no official position on breast implants or possible health risks thereof. Our interest in this case is the First Amendment issues raised. Press inquiries relating to Ms. Rosenthal's work should be directed to the Humantics Foundation at 858/270-0680.


[NOTE: to be removed from this list at any time, please write ilena@san.rr.com]

 

***

From eastbayexpress.com

Originally published by East Bay Express September 5, 2001


{ http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2001-09-05/cityside.html }

War of the Words

An Oakland judge makes a precedent-setting ruling in an Internet libel case

By Kara Platoni

Let's say there's this guy who really gets under your skin; let's call him Mr. Smith. Let's say you dislike Mr. Smith so much that you want to torpedo his career by spreading untrue and defamatory rumors about him -- that he cheats on his taxes, say, or sniffs rubber cement. Let's say you write these accusations up and send them to a newspaper, which reprints your allegations without bothering to fact-check them. What happens when Mr. Smith picks up the paper? Most likely, both you and the paper will be slapped with a libel suit, and most likely, Mr. Smith will win. But what if instead of sending your letter to the newspaper, you e-mailed it to a friend who posted it to an Internet newsgroup? Can Mr. Smith still sue both of you? An Oakland judge's answer might surprise you.

Last month, California Supreme Court judge James A. Richman heard what may be the nation's first case specifically dealing with the issue of reposting libelous material on the Internet. In a 27-page ruling, Richman wrote that while someone who creates defamatory material can be sued for damages, someone who merely repeats it on the Internet is protected by
federal law, specifically a 1996 statute called the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Originally intended to protect Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Yahoo! or AOL from being held responsible for libelous matter generated in chat rooms and on bulletin boards, section 230 of the CDA states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, the ISP is not responsible for the bad behavior of its subscribers.

The Oakland case, formally known as Barrett v. Clark, is the first to apply section 230's protections to an individual person, rather than a corporate entity like an ISP. Richman's decision will doubtless have major repercussions for Internet users; after all, it's a medium where communication relies heavily upon quoting and reposting the comments of others, and where much material is posted anonymously or pseudonymously. While civil liberties activists are cheering the ruling as a clear victory for free speech in cyberspace, critics fear that allowing people to repost potentially libelous material on the Internet with impunity will spur reckless behavior.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barrett v. Clark didn't start off sounding much like a free-speech case, and it didn't begin in Oakland at all. The suit was filed in November 2000 by retired psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Barrett and Dr. Terry Polevoy (residents of Pennsylvania and Canada, respectively), both of whom have made careers of debunking what they claim is junk science. Barrett runs not one but six Web sites devoted to consumer and medical fraud, including one called Quackbusters.com; he has questioned the validity of everything from vitamins to the paranormal to the teachings of Deepak Chopra. Polevoy is a medical doctor and also runs a Web site exposing health frauds.

Barrett and Polevoy seem to have found an archrival in Hulda Clark, a woman who has written a book claiming that all cancers are caused by an intestinal fluke that can be removed with the help of herbal medicine and self-administered low-voltage shocks from a battery-operated "zapper" (both of which she is conveniently willing to sell you). Clark operates a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, and also sells her products and books over the Internet.

What began as a war of the words between the quackbuster camp and Clark's supporters escalated after Clark allegedly hired a man named Tim Bolen to handle her public relations. According to Barrett and Polevoy's suit, Bolen began circulating a letter on the Internet that, among other unflattering claims against the quackbusters, accused Polevoy of stalking a radio reporter and preventing her from airing a show about alternative medicine. The letter also asked people to send letters of complaint about Polevoy to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Somewhere along the line, a San Diego woman named Ilena Rosenthal, who runs an Internet-based support group for women who have medical problems resulting from breast implants, came across Bolen's letter and reposted it to two alternative-medicine newsgroups. Barrett contacted her, told her the letter was libelous, and threatened suit if she didn't remove it. Rosenthal merely reposted Bolen's letter as well as Barrett's threat. When Barrett and Polevoy finally filed their suit against Clark and Bolen, Rosenthal was included as a defendant as well. In fact, because the plaintiffs' attorneys were unable to track down either Clark or Bolen to serve them with the suit, Rosenthal became the only defendant available for trial. (Currently, Barrett also has three other libel suits in progress in different cities.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter Oakland attorney Mark Goldowitz of the California Anti-SLAPP Project. A SLAPP suit -- or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- is filed to drain the funds and energy of a political opponent through litigation, and Goldowitz believed that Rosenthal, as a proponent of alternative medicine, was being "SLAPPed" by the quackbusters. He filed a motion to strike her from the suit, arguing that Rosenthal should not be held accountable for libelous material that she had not written, but merely reposted.

While Judge Richman's ruling barely mentioned the SLAPP charges, he agreed with Goldowitz about Rosenthal's immunity. Trial court judges rarely issue lengthy written opinions, yet Richman's ruling dismissing Rosenthal from the suit meticulously explains his reasoning. "It is undisputed that Rosenthal did not 'create' or 'develop' the information in defendant Bolen's piece," he wrote. "Thus, as a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, Rosenthal is not the publisher or speaker of Bolen's piece. Thus, she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the Internet. She is immune."

Perhaps more importantly, Richman made it clear that he believes the courts should hold Internet communications to a different standard than printed media. Richman's ruling cites a decision made earlier this year in the case of Global Telemedia International v. Doe, in which critical comments made in an Internet chat room were held to be "non-actionable opinion and rhetoric" because they were "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" on the Internet where the "postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." In other words, the language people use on the Internet is brasher than what they use elsewhere and therefore criticisms and insults posted on the Internet should be held to a looser standard.

Groups like the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which advocates for free speech in the online world, applauded Richman's ruling, saying that it recognizes essential protections established in the CDA.

"Offending someone is really not completely about what one person is saying to another person -- it's a clash of expectations or cultures or communities," says EFF attorney Lee Tien. "Defamation law to a large extent is about which community's norms should rule. We recognize that there has come to be a distinctive style of communication on the Internet
and its most public places, like Usenet and Yahoo! bulletin boards. Should we be able to use the social norms of the pages of the Wall Street Journal to judge the speech of posters on [investment bulletin-board site] Raging Bull?"

Not only do people communicate differently on the Internet, they also do it more quickly. According to Goldowitz, the ability to respond quickly to false claims makes Internet libel different from print libel. "It's not like the defamation is out there unanswered for weeks or months or days. You can get a response up in an hour or two; you can say, 'This is wrong; here are the documents,'" says Goldowitz.

But Barrett says it's not nearly that easy. "Do you know what it is to respond on the Internet?" he asks exasperatedly. "First you have to find the [libelous] messages and you have to find a way to monitor every day if you want to get them all. They also [travel] by e-mail and there's no way to trace that. There's also no way to be sure that the people who read the first message are going to read the second. People don't stay on lists." He also points out that battles in the court of public opinion are rarely winnable. "Who wants to get involved in a battle over whether [Polevoy] is a stalker?" Barrett asks. "People shouldn't have to respond to libel by getting into a public debate."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barrett and other critics argue that Richman's interpretation of section 230 is overly broad. "With all due respect to the court, it was not the right decision," says Christopher Grell, the Oakland attorney for the plaintiffs. "I think the CDA wanted to allow the free expression of ideas but not allow someone to harass an individual or company by protecting them from [liability for] things that they do intentionally." They worry that if the ruling stands, unscrupulous people will take advantage of the immunities given to reposters. "It would end all libel protection on the Internet, absolutely, totally, 100 percent," says Barrett. "The judge's ruling would permit a person to publish something anonymously or under a false name and then quote themselves. What the judge said is that we have a right to go after the original libeler, but that may not be a real person, or they may be in a foreign country; they may be somebody we could never find. There are all kinds of mischievous possibilities."

Grell plans to appeal the case all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary. "It's an attempt to put some decency back into the Communications Decency Act," he says. (Although Rosenthal has been dismissed from Barrett v. Clark, the suit will still go on against the remaining defendants whenever they turn up.) Grell has filed a motion for consideration to reverse Richman's decision, as well as a notice of appeal in case the judge doesn't reconsider.

Rosenthal's attorneys say they welcome further legal challenges because they're confident their victory will be reaffirmed by a higher appellate court; they think that concerns about the misapplication of Richman's ruling are vastly overstated. "Whenever society decides that certain kinds of discussions should be constitutionally protected, there is always the potential danger that there might be some uses of that right of expression that we might not agree with or might cause damage," says Goldowitz. "But in the big picture, the frequency of that is going to be much, much, much smaller than the number of situations where this will appropriately expand the freedom of discussion on the Internet."


{ http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2001-09-05/cityside.html }


To write the author:
kara.platoni@eastbayexpress.com

 

***

08/31/01

TR - Motion for Reconsideration - Denied

This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge James Richman

The Motion by Plaintiffs Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., et al., for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of July 25, 2001 Granting the Special Motion to Strike filed on behalf of Defendant Ilena Rosenthal is DENIED.  

The proffered "new" evidence in the form of the June 4, 2001 dismissal establishes that only Plaintiff Christopher Grell voluntarily dismissed his action as against Defendant Ilena Rosenthal following the Court's May 30, 2001 hearing on the Special Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs provide no authority to support their contention that a voluntary dismissal by one Plaintiff deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider whether any remaining Plaintiff has met his burden to establish a probability of success on the merits of any claims that any remaining Plaintiff has against Defendant Rosenthal. Each of Plaintiffs' alternative arguments in support of the Motion for Reconsideration is denied for failure to present any new or different facts, evidence or law to support it.


 


 Home Contents Library

 

  Environmentally Friendly Bed Bug & other Insect Killer.

Safe for humans and animals.

Ecosmart, Cedarcide, Diatomaceous Earth 1, 2, 3

See also 1, 2, 3

 

Do a Parasite Cleanse Annually

It's estimated that 90% of the population may have some form of harmful organism lurking in their body and they don't know it! These intruders live and feed off the host, depriving us of vitamins, nutrients, and amino acids, altering our natural pH levels, decreasing our energy, and creating an acidic environment in the body. Paratrex® aids the body in creating an inhospitable environment for these invading organisms.

Once a person is infested, it's not too difficult to eliminate the adult organisms. The more difficult part lies in dealing with the complete life cycle of these intruders. Paratrex® is one of the most powerful aids in helping the body establish an internal environment that is unfavorable and even hostile to unwanted invaders.

 

 
Lugol's Iodine Solution (2 oz.) New Super Size Package-4 Bottles


 

In 1904 there was very little cancer. Now there is an abundance of cancer. What has changed? Can this be reversed? If you have cancer or do not want to get cancer the information you and your family need is on this web site.

 

Note: there are two ways to navigate this site. You can follow the pages in their logical sequence, or you can access every page from "Contents".

 

For your assistance, there are Google search boxes on each page that will allow you to search this web site or the entire Internet for more information.

 

Alkalize For Health Site Search 

Custom Search

Search the Internet with Google

 

 

Copyright © 2000 - 2018 AlkalizeForHealth
All rights reserved.

Home               Contents               Library