The 9th Circuit court decided on Tuesday that bloggers have 1st amendment protection when it comes to republishing information. The same protection that covers ISPs, email providers or Internet content providers covers us as well.

What does that mean? Well, you can still be sued for libel if you intentionally post untrue information which causes damages to another party, but you cannot be sued if information you republish is libelous. However, if someone posts a comment to your blog and that comment is libelous, then, under this new decision, you cannot be held liable for it, even if you “take some affirmative steps to edit the material posted.”

Now, a pertinent question becomes, what about information that you repost from another source? What if, say, you see information on another web site, and you repost it on yours (presumably citing your source and showing quotes or denoting paraphrasing), and the information turns out to be libelous? Are you culpable then?

Not being a legal scholar, I cannot say for certain, but I would presume the answer is “no.” The decision speaks to the definition of being an “information content provider,” which is to say, did you “create or develop” the information? This was addressed in the context of having received an email from someone else and then posting it, and did not speak of actively clipping the information and bringing it to your site yourself. Still, it would seem to be an act of “republishing” rather than “creating or developing.” Or, if you are simply reporting that someone else said this, then you are merely commenting on a fact–unless, of course, you chime in a say that you believe it to be true.

A sticky issue, and not really addressed by this decision by the 9th.

Anyone out there have any opinions on this? Or, better yet, legal knowledge? Can you be sued for libel by reprinting information that was published elsewhere?

Comments are invited.