>In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known th

>In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it. It's not like the plaintiff went to Google with a prior legal judgment against the RipOff website telling Google to take it down. Apparently the court expects Google to remove (within one month) "self-evident" defamatory content if alerted to it. That's a pretty interesting precedent to set. What makes defamation"self-evident"?