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.
CowboyNeal resumes breathing, and takes his finger off the main power switch.
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.
I didn't know Yoda was canadian!
THE SCOOP IS IN!
Hyperlinks are more like references rather than footnotes.
Well, they're really like a lot of tube entrances...
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
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.
Newton got lucky and got a judge that actually has a basic understanding of the Internet. Most Canadian judges are as bad, if not worse, than American judges, when it comes to understanding the "Internets." This is great news, however, because our libel laws in Canada are a lot more strict than the U.S. Any victory that broadens free speech is great news.
I wish all of my decisions were ten paged!
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
Most Canadian judges are as bad, if not worse, than American judges, when it comes to understanding the "Internets."
Do you have any references for that?
The only other "internets" case I've heard of was the P2P case, wherein the judge told the CRIA to collectively get stuffed.
Now, this isn't exactly scientific, but if you could cite other internet (or technology) related cases that were wrong, I'd appreciate being enlightened.
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
"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