As bloggers, we have had some concerns about whether we would be liable for libelous comments posted by Talkleft readers. Last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said online publishers are not responsible for material written by others that gets published on their sites--with one caveat:

In order for the provider or publisher of the information to receive immunity, the publisher reasonably must have determined that the author/sender/user meant for his communication to be published. In cases where a user directly posts his own comments, this is obvious.

But when a user sends an email to an online publisher, such as a blog, and does not intend for it to be published, the immunity issue gets murky. The Ninth Circuit determined in this decision that the test should not be the intent of the author, but rather, whether the provider (publisher) reasonably could assume that the information was sent with the intent for it to be published.

A federal appeals courts says do-it-yourself online publishers can post material generated by others without being legally liable for its content. Although the case concerned an e-mail discussion list, publishers of online journals, called blogs, hailed last week's ruling by the 9th Circuit as also extending speech protections to them.

"It clarifies the existing law," said Eric Brown, who represented the defendant in the suit. "It expands it in the sense that no court had really addressed bloggers, listserv (e-mail list) operators and those people yet" at such a high level.

The court said noncommercial publishers are only liable when they post information that a reasonable person would have known wasn't meant to be published.

"Now we can publish information we receive from someone else without fear of getting sued," said Jeralyn Merritt, a lawyer and blogger who manages TalkLeft, a Web site about crime-related news and politics.

Merritt said it would be impossible to monitor the nearly 200 messages posted onto her site every day. "We write for the enjoyment of it," said Merritt. "If we could get sued, I'm not sure it would be worth it."

We'll have more to say about the decison next week. Here's another version of the article, with a greater explanation of the facts in the 9th Circuit case.