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."

Comments

Of course not

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Of course not

[TubeSteak]

Let me suggest that you read all the way to the end of the decision -- context is everything. The judge essentially said that the context in which you put the link is the critical factor:

I would think that the context shouldn't matter at all unless the linked-to material had been previously proven defamatory in a court of law.

But IANAL, so what do I know.

Re:Maybe it's the judge.....

[Kandenshi]

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?

Perhaps, just perhaps, that's not an "or" question? I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb and say that the answer to your question(s) is just "Yes." Yes the bar association is trying to cover the ass of their members, and yes a fair number of US judges seem to make mind-bogglingly weird decisions.