p2pnet.net News:- Canadian media have picked up on the online defamation case in which woman’s health advocate Ilena Rosenthal is accused of libeling Canadian doctor Terry Polevoy by posting, “second-hand slurs accusing him of ’stalking’ a Toronto radio host”.

Polevoy runs an acne clinic in Kitchener, Ontario, but he’s also, “a self-described ‘quackbuster’ whose site is, “dedicated to exposing fraudulent medicinal products,” says the CanWest News Service, going on that he was a, “vocal critic of a now-defunct Toronto-based radio show about health issues hosted by broadcaster Christine McPhee”.

The program was cancelled in 2000, and Polevoy was targeted by US alternative health advocate Tim Bolen, “who made online accusations the doctor had not only forced McPhee off the air, but physically threatened and ‘’stalked’ her,” says the story: “When Bolen’s comments were posted on Rosenthal’s website, Polevoy launched a libel suit that has woven its way through California courts ever since.”

But as p2pnet posted on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court may now dismiss the lawsuit against Rosenthal.

As Law.com summarised it, “California lawyer Christopher Grell’s belief that, ‘certain Internet speech shouldn’t be immune from liability was bombing … during oral arguments in the state Supreme Court. But the coup de grace came when Justice Ming Chin followed up Grell’s presentation by immediately telling one of the opposing lawyers how surprised he was by Grell’s ’startling lack of legal authority’.”

Grell, “also sued me for libel even though I had never mentioned his name,” says Rosenthal in a p2pnet Reader’s Write. “He had refused to drop his case against me until he was before Superior Court Judge Richmond and claimed he had not ‘meant’ to sue me.”

Meanwhile, Ming’s statement, “apparently summed all seven justices’ thoughts about Grell’s argument, and effectively signaled that the court doesn’t intend to make untold numbers of Internet users liable for every allegedly defamatory posting on the Web,” said Law.com.

The lawsuit was initially thrown out by a district judge, says CanWest, but a 2004 appeal sent Polevoy’s case to the the California Supreme Court, “and Internet-based corporations from AOL to EBay racing to file briefs in defence of Rosenthal’s right to facilitate the posting of potentially defamatory third-party statements on her website.”

The report also has Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, noting, “from a Canadian perspective, we still have not grappled with the issue of intermediary liability in the context of defamation.

“Indeed, the failure to do so may result in a greater number of legal threats for online defamation and an increased likelihood of a free-speech chill as hosts of controversial content fear lawsuits.”

p2pnet is also being sued for defamation and with the above in mind, in a BBC article, “The suit, launched by Sharman Networks’ Nikki Hemming, has attracted considerable international attention because of the parties involved - Sharman Networks is the Australian-based owner of Kazaa, the peer-to-peer file sharing service that last week agreed to pay the entertainment industry $100m (£53m) to settle ongoing litigation,” wrote Geist, going on:

“It also highlights the vulnerability of thousands of individuals to defamation lawsuits merely for providing access to other people’s comments. Even individual bloggers who permit comments face the prospect of demands to remove content that is alleged to violate the law

“Both Sharman Networks and Hemming sued P2Pnet last spring, claiming that an article and accompanying comments posted by readers of the site were libellous.

“Jon Newton, the owner of the site, has vigorously disputed the suit, pointing to the need to protect free speech and to ensure that defamation laws cannot be used to stifle comment.

“Sharman Networks recently dropped its claim, however the Hemming suit continues.

“The case places the spotlight on the liability of internet intermediaries. The importance of the issue extends well beyond just internet service providers - corporate websites that allow for user feedback, education websites featuring chatrooms, or even individual bloggers who permit comments face the prospect of demands to remove content that is alleged to violate the law.”

Also See:
CanWest News Service - Canadian doctor’s suit against blogger reaches California Supreme Court, September 13, 2006
now dismiss - US judge criticizes Net libel suits, September 12, 2006
Law.com - Calif. High Court Cold to Liability in Online Speech, September 6, 2006
BBC - Free speech, libel and the internet age, July 31, 2006
$100m (£53m) - Kazaa owner’s DRM plan, August 4, 2006