The woman was whom apparently was sued, not the websites. The woman 'published' the items as the word is used in the legal sense. It is similar to a person writing a letter to the editor, or putting a sign up on a public bulletin board. She is clearly a primary participant. The third party would then need to be some other unrelated source. Also libel is only one form of defamation.

Remember, the way words are used or defined in a legal sense are not the way words are necessarily used in the common sense. Two examples: A lawyer 'publishes' to a jury by showing them a document (such as a photo). If I stand up in a bar and make the statements as opposed to putting them in written form, I have still 'published' it as it applies to defamation.

I don't know how the statute will ultimately be applied to defamation on the internet, and ultimately your view may become the focus of the act. But sense the woman herself apparently was a party, then it wouldn't be the website at risk. I do think websites need protection if we are going to rely upon them as the 21st century version of the public square.