ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Minnesota woman who wrote a message on the Internet critical of an Alabama scholar cannot be sued for libel in the scholar's home state.

The woman's lawyer said the ruling shows that free-speech rules covering newspapers, magazines or television also apply to a new medium like the Internet.

The high court vacated a $25,000 judgment against Marianne Luban, whose criticism on an Internet newsgroup devoted to Egyptology was directed at Katherine Griffis, a scholar living in Alabama.

The Internet posting mentioned that Griffis had ties to

Griffis then asked a Minnesota court to enforce the award.

Luban's attorney argued the initial suit should have been filed in Minnesota, saying most libel cases for printed materials occur in the place where the statement is produced.

The high court's unanimous decision overturned rulings in two lower Minnesota courts upholding the Alabama verdict.

"The fact that messages posted to the newsgroup could have been read in Alabama, just as they could have been read anywhere in the world, cannot suffice to establish Alabama as the focal point of the defendant's conduct," the court's opinion said.

Griffis' attorney, Peter Erlinder, said he may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We think the court simply misread the law," he said, adding that the ruling effectively gives Minnesotans freedom "to attack people anywhere in the world" and never have to prove they were in the place where the damage was done.

Luban's attorney, John Borger, said the ruling extends traditional libel protections to cyberspace.

"Engaging in a general discussion to a general audience will not be enough to lead to a suit elsewhere even if the person being talked about lives in another state or country," he said.