Calif. Court Cites Broad Section 230 Protections in Defamation Case
A woman who shared social media posts of two California high school students allegedly engaging in racist, blackface activity after the 2020 killing of George Floyd isn’t liable for defamation of the students because she’s protected by Communications Decency Act Section 230, California’s Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District ruled Thursday, affirming a trial court’s decision.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The plaintiffs, identified as A.H. and H.H., are former students of Saint Francis Catholic High School in Mountain View, California. After the killing of Floyd, photographs of the students wearing dark masks circulated on social media. The students were accused of wearing blackface in order to create a racist meme. Defendant Alicia Labana, the mother of another student at the school, shared another parent’s Facebook post, saying A.H. and H.H. were “participating in black face.” Facing expulsion for their alleged behavior, A.H. and H.H. withdrew from the school. They then sued the school, its president and Labana, claiming Labana is guilty of defamation, specifically libel per se. Parents of A.H. and H.H. told the school dean the boys were wearing “green acne masks,” and the photo was taken three years earlier. One of the parents, identified as Wendy C., claimed Labana was intentionally targeting the students without “substantiating the facts of the matter.”
The trial court granted Labana’s anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) motion to strike. The court entered a separate order awarding Labana attorney fees and costs, according to the filing. The trial court concluded the plaintiffs “failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of their defamation claim.” The plaintiffs claim the trial court erred because it wrongly identified the basis of their defamation claim as the photograph, when in fact it was an accompanying statement about the students “participating in black face.”
The appeals court noted that Section 230 allows broad immunity against defamation liability to internet users who publish information originating from another source. None of the plaintiffs’ evidence “conflicts with the evidence demonstrating Labana was not the original poster of either the photograph or the Facebook event post, or the evidence that she was not the creator or developer of that post,” the court said. It’s true Labana shared opinions that the students should be shamed for their allegedly racist acts. It’s also undisputed that Labana used the material on the internet to host and encourage a protest march against the students in question, the court said: But that doesn’t mean Labana was the “originator, creator, or developer of the Facebook event post.”
“The uncontroverted evidence demonstrated Labana was not the original poster, creator or developer of either the photograph or ‘blackface’ statement included in the Facebook event post,” the decision said. “Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding Section 230 immunized Labana from liability for defamation based on that post.”