This case includes an article that allegedly defamed Dr. Janet Monge. Dr. Deborah Thomas, a Penn professor, forwarded the article to an e-mail record run by the American Black Anthropologists. Dr. Monge sued Dr. Thomas (and lots of different defendants). For extra background on this advanced case, see this opinion. On this ruling, Dr. Thomas efficiently invoked Part 230.
(Notice: it’s unclear if Dr. Thomas forwarded a 3rd celebration’s e-mail that included the article, or if she wrote a brand new e-mail that included the allegedly defamatory article. It’s additionally unclear if Dr. Thomas’ e-mail linked to the article or included its full textual content. None of these info would have an effect on Part 230’s utility).
From a Part 230 standpoint, that is a straightforward case. Quite a few circumstances have utilized Part 230 to e-mail forwarding of third-party content material, and this case suits snugly into the style. Thus, the decide says that courts have “constantly held that distributing, sharing, and forwarding content material created and/or developed by a 3rd celebration is conduct immunized by the CDA.” Cites to Inexperienced v. AOL, Obado v. Magedson, Peters v. LifeLock, Mitan v. A. Neumann, Novins v. Cannon, Phan v. Pham.
To get round this, Dr. Monge argued that Dr. Thomas materially contributed to the defamation as a result of different remarks in her e-mail. This doesn’t work as a result of “Dr. Thomas didn’t add something new to the articles, or materially modify them, when she shared them through e-mail….All Dr. Thomas did was share the articles through e-mail together with her opinion, primarily based on the content material of the articles, that Dr. Monge had improperly dealt with the stays.” Cites to Batzel, Phan,
It is a good instance of how Part 230 advantages on-line customers, not simply “Large Tech.” Dr. Thomas will get the identical authorized safety as Google and Fb, although she’s didn’t function any system in any respect.
It’s additionally a reminder of how Part 230 presently protects the promotion of content material, along with the internet hosting of it. That side stays pending with the US Supreme Court docket.
Case quotation: Monge v. College of Pennsylvania, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40724 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2023)
Prior Weblog Posts on Electronic mail Forwarding and Associated Actions