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

Plagiarism!

[Itninja]

The entire text of this post was lifted from here!

Re:Plagiarism!

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep clicking on your link and finding that you've already commented on the linked story as well. What's more, your new comment seems to possess a link to yet another story on which you have already commented. I'm just going to post this once, seeing as I don't have your posting dedication.

Re:Plagiarism!

[icepick72]

I'm sure glad a hyperlink can't plagiarize! 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.

Scene in Slashdot Server Room

[blair1q]

CowboyNeal resumes breathing, and takes his finger off the main power switch.

Quotes from the judge's decision

[Jabbrwokk]

Two reasons:

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.

Re:Quotes from the judge's decision

[Jabbrwokk]

Newspapers have audited circulation. Websites do not. For example, a newspaper may have an audited circulation of 23,000. That means if an article is deemed libelous, it's assumed the newspaper was delivered to 23,000 homes where people had a chance to read it.

With newspapers, it's assumed that people have read the libelous article. That's when other defences come into play such as fair comment, prior publication, etc.

Conclusion: Don't put counters on your website, and don't keep an IP log.

Re:Of course not

[whoever57]

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.

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:

[34] I do not wish to be misunderstood. 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.

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

[Jabbrwokk]

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.

Not Goodwin

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:Not Goodwin

[CastrTroy]

You don't have to be such a Nazi about it.

Re:Of course not

[ceoyoyo]

If you claim something is true, you're responsible for that claim even if the actual something was written by a third party.

I write "TubeSteak is accurately described thusly: " and goes to one of the more interesting parts of the bible that talks about child molestation, it's not the bible (in that case) that's being defamatory.

Canadian Human Rights Commission Next

[rossz]

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.