Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Court Rules "Hyperlink" Is Not Defamation
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a landmark ruling, a Canadian court has ruled that a web site's publication of hyperlinks to an allegedly defamatory web site is not in and of itself a 'publication,' and therefore cannot in and of itself constitute defamation. In a 10-page decision [PDF], Crookes v. Wikimedia, Sup. Ct., British Columbia, Judge Keller dismissed the libel case against Jon Newton, the publisher of p2pnet.net, which was based on the fact that his article contained links to the allegedly defamatory site, since hyperlinks, the Court reasoned, are analogous to footnotes, rather than constituting a 'republication.' Mr. Newton was represented in the case by famous libel, slander, and civil liberties lawyer Dan Burnett of Vancouver, British Columbia."
The entire text of this post was lifted from here!
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Of course it isn't just as telling someone that there is a book that says Hitler is a bad guy isn't saying it yourself even if it's true.
It's informing someone of a resource not defaming someone.
The name of the plaintiff is oddly appropriate. Just reading the first couple of pages of the decision really makes me just shake my head. Some people...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
CowboyNeal resumes breathing, and takes his finger off the main power switch.
Hyperlinks are more like references rather than footnotes.
There are two issues for determination in this application. First, the defendant says that there is no evidence that any person followed the hyperlinks in question or read the words that are complained of. The plaintiffs have therefore failed to prove publication, one of the essential elements of the tort of defamation.
Second, in any event, the defendant argues that creating a hyperlink to words that are defamatory is not publication of those words.
No proof links were clicked:
Regardless, the issue in this case is not how accessible the website is, but rather, if anyone followed the hyperlinks posted on the p2pnet site. Without proof that persons other than the plaintiff visited the defendant's website, clicked on the hyperlinks, and read the articles complained of, there cannot be a finding of publication. As in Crookes v. Holloway, the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to support this claim.
Footnotes analogy:
I agree with the defendant that footnotes in an article are an apt analogy. Where a footnote leads a reader to further material, that does not make the author who provided the footnote a publisher of what the reader finds when the footnote is followed.
Not a libel loophole:
It is not my decision that hyperlinking can never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site. For example, if Mr. Newton had written "the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here" and "here" is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.
This ruling is soooo much easier to read than American (US) judge's rulings. When I had my little biz law class, most of the rulings had to be interpreted by the attorney teaching the class (i.e. "this is what the judge meant.")
The Canadian ruling, OTH, is in English. Go figure.
Is it because, the US Bar Association is protecting its members by making the legal "language" aka Legalese hard to understand or is because most US judges are fucking retarded and can't put a coherent sentence together?
I didn't know Yoda was canadian!
THE SCOOP IS IN!
A huge document, an army of highly-paid professionals, and lots of time devoted to arguing about whether hyperlinks are republications or footnotes. It's no wonder why the economy goes like this and nobody produces anything. Geez. I'd prefer to live on a planet where the humans prefer investing their time and energy in growing potatoes and assembling widgets in factories, rather than arguing about whether hyperlinks amount to republication or footnotes. I am not saying that legal professionals are not useful people, they are, but what I am saying is that we, the humanity as a whole, seem to have lost our focus on what is really important: in a sane society a case like this wouldn't even be subject to argumentation and analysis, because there are a myriad other more productive activities to spend one's time (yea like posting on slashdot!).
But... I'm glad they got it right.
(see "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense")
Till the invocation of Goodwin's law. Not a record, but my hats off for the valiant try sir!
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
Obviously they never heard of http://canadasucksballs/
Crookes? x_O
Hyperlinks are more like references rather than footnotes.http://nude2.110mb.com
That's up there with "Missing Link" and "Weak Link".
Definitely defamatory, I think I would need compensation for the mental trauma.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
GAGGED IN CANADA
I wish all of my decisions were ten paged!
"If you can't get the name right, what else are you getting wrong?" - a CBC announcer.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing!
The OP does not, in fact, invoke Goodwin's Law. That only applies when a poster either calls somebody a Nazi or makes an unfavorable comparison between that person and either the Nazis or Hitler himself. Just mentioning Hitler doesn't count.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Since links aren't defamatory, I can post something like this with impunity!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
and you're going to give lawyers a good name.
Sig this!
to see such rulings. This judge seems to have had his head on his shoulders.
Thanks for the post.
not that i know anything about law or anything but isn't this pretty much saying that the hosts that Hyperling to .torrent files are not actually publishing anything and as such are not liable and the place that actially holds the torrents are?
not sure if it changes the war on RIAA etc in any way just thought i'd mention it as it seems to be a intresting definition of a hyperlink...
WTF - Speak in acronyms already, i can't figure out what you mean otherwise boss
The loser will just take this case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The rules of evidence and law don't apply. The truth is not a defense. Your chance of successfully defending yourself against the most outlandish charge is almost nonexistent.
Example. Magazine published a review of a book critical of islam. Someone charged the magazine with a human rights violation. Years of hearings costing a bundle of money and the only reason they didn't lose was because of the huge amount of publicity that particular case received. This was the ONLY time someone did not lose against the CHRC.
Google on the subject and be amazed.
-- Will program for bandwidth
You just got trolled
That kills my infinite storage device patent. It simply stored content and then a link to itself. Oh well.
Hmm.
I
Think
Links
Encourage
Retaliation.
Now to submit
An entry to Firehose so
Zany & emergent that
It doesn't exist yet.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
that's just AWESOME
Guys its ok. After all this ruling was just in Canada, which of course means its not worth the paper it was printed on. Oh sorry, was that defamatory? *Fixes*
Thank goodness I know the secret Slashdot "Edit Post" button.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
"Your honour I would like to prove my point with this simple demonstration. The link you see on my screen appears harmless enough, but when I click it...."
"Jesus H Christ! What the fuck is that?! Turn it off! Turn it off! Case dismissed! Clear the court room!"
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
> hyperlinks, the Court reasoned, are analogous to footnotes, rather
> than constituting a 'republication'.
Hyperlinks are analagous to a guy standing on a corner saying, "Hey, over there is another guy who's calling Donald Trump a crook!"
I don't believe that bit of info would fall under a liability law, but IANAL.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In this video interview, UBC Graduate School of Journalism adjunct professor Dan Burnett explains the impact of the ruling by a Canadian court that linking does not amount to publication: