[3] While working for Hulda Clark, Bolen distributed a missive online message that attacked Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy, medical doctors who publicly criticize what they consider quackery.

[3] One of the people who came across Bolen's letter was Ilena Rosenthal, who runs an Internet-based support group for women who have medical problems, which they believe to be caused by breast implants.

[3] Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell filed suit against Clark, Bolen, Rosenthal, and 100 John Doe defendants in November 2000 before Alameda County Superior Court Judge James A. Richman.

[5] In an unusually long 27-page written opinion, Judge Richman dismissed the case (against Rosenthal only) under the California Special motion to strike (an anti-SLAPP statute), which is intended to stop lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances.

[4] The court ruled that Rosenthal, as a "distributor," could be held liable under Section 230 for content republished after receiving notice of a potentially defamatory statement, just as vendors of traditional media can be.

It is they who provide much of the 'diversity of political discourse,' the pursuit of 'opportunities for cultural development,' and the exploration of 'myriad avenues for intellectual activity' that the statute was meant to protect.However, the court also acknowledged that blanket immunity for the redistribution of defamatory statements on the Internet has "disturbing implications.

"[16] In a concurring opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno also suggested that immunity would not extend to an online publisher or distributor who conspires to defame an original content provider.

[1] Because Barrett and Polevoy were public figures, to pursue their defamation claims, they would have had to show by clear and convincing evidence that Rosenthal republished Bolen's statements with malice.