Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Linking Is Not Defamation
omega6, joining the legions of accepted submitters, writes "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that posting links is not the same as posting the actual content, but more similar to a footnote. 'The top court ruled against former Green party campaign manager Wayne Crookes, who argued that posting links to sites with defamatory statements was the same as publishing the defamatory material.'"
I can't remember the URL for goatse.cx, or I'd totally post it.
which is totally what she said
Hopefully this extends to the fact that linking to pirated content is not piracy.
So then a link to a copyrighted work would just be a foot note and not copyright infringement. Time for all those aggregation sites to move to Canadian ISPs.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
How I love thee, let me cite[1],[2],[3] ways...
Somehow I just don't think that'll work, come Valentine's Day...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If Crookes did this in association with the party, then fuck them. They're just like the rest. Their record on internet freedom isn't exactly outstanding. The stand they took a few years back in favor of filtering in Australia is a case in point. Either way, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Crookes vs Newton case, Newton runs the site p2pnet were the link was posted.
http://www.p2pnet.net/
Set up a website anonymously with whatever content you want on it and then link to it, now it's not yours but you are essentially saying it anyways.
www.republicancandidatesmomisadirtywhore.com hey i'm just linking it, i didn't call this guys mom a whore!
... deserves a mention here: https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/pendingcases/joseph-gordon/ (Yes this is Canada, not Thailand)
But we're still running way behind!
Subscribers get to see stories slightly before the rest of users (but can't comment until the story goes live), and they are shown with a red title to indicate that they haven't gone live yet. However on occasion, a bug in slashcode causes regular users to see a red title for a short time after the story has gone live.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
A court aknowledging that linking and publishing is different will be a strong point for arguments in the rest of the world with less tech-savvy people. I hope we can get more courts in more countries to think the same way. And then get rid of those defamation laws as well.
If we following the footnote analogy, then this is equivalent to a footnote to a book with a defamatory title. Citing such a book is probably protected, but creating a made up title for the purpose of defaming someone might not be defamatory.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No.
How about http://www.example.com/john-is-a?compulsive=not&liar=no pointing to a page with derogatory statements? Would that fly?
Technically IFRAME and IMG are just links, but would they qualify as a more affirmative action and thus constitute defamation under this ruling?
Does this protect http://www.example.com/john/is/a/compulsive/liar ?
This is implied by the separate but concurring judgment. The Chief Justice writes: "In sum, in our view, a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to." Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47) at paragraph 50.
Here in
We had a site that was only of interest to geeks throughout our department. I did some digging and it turns out that things like source code aren't covered by the rules. So I started posting pages that looked like
Was asked about it by people from Ottawa, explained it, never had a problem.
Trolling is a art,
If your link, or any other part of the page your link is on, suggests you endorse or support the defamatory page, you could be nailed for libel. It's in the decision.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
The second, deep hyperlink, however, did make the content readily available. All the reader had to do to gain access to the article was to click on the link, which does not constitute a barrier to the availability of the material. Thus, C has satisfied the requirements of the first component of publication on a balance of probabilities where this link is concerned. However, the nature of N’s article, the way the various links were presented and the number of hits on the article do not support an inference that the allegedly defamatory information was brought to the knowledge of some third person
He only got off because it was unlikely that anyone actually clicked the link. If his page had more hits, or someone in the court knew about logging referrer headers, then he may well not have gotten off.
Obvious to you, but not so obvious to a bunch of lawyers and judges who fear or hate technology (or both), and probably not so obvious to most people who are not as expert in this area as your average slashdot reader.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
They know what is right but they will look the other way for money.
Lawyers and lobbyists on staff= Tools of the 1%
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Well, my post was commenting on lawyers and judges who don't understand technology. In that sense, they certainly don't know what's "right". But as far as knowing the moral "right", well that's a whole other thread. And not as simple or clear-cut as you're making it seem. The Supreme Court of Canada has been busy just lately, and some of the decisions they've handed down have been rather painful for the government.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I don't actually know French, but I think I get the gist of that info comment.
If your link, or any other part of the page your link is on, suggests you endorse or support the defamatory page, you could be nailed for libel. It's in the decision.
Hence the question. Vars compulsive=not and liar=no. I'm wondering what case law will be derived from this, now, before it happens.
Well, since most people aren't even going to notice the URL, I don't think it'll come up. Much more important will be the content of the page. But if the plaintiff can use the URL string to impute an intention to defame or an endorsement of the defamatory page, then they might win.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
NO. It does not protect you if the defamation/libel is in the link. From the Toronto Sun article on the matter:
“The Internet, in short, cannot provide access to information without hyperlinks,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. “Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and as a result, freedom of expression.”
While the decision was unanimous, two justices warned that framing or endorsing the link as the truth or accurate could still land an Internet linker in court.
“Combined text and hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish. “If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content.”
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Hyperlinks are about as complicit in libel as ears are complicit in slander. Both provide access to the defamation in question, but neither are the defamation itself!
It's about time one of the higher-ups here formed a rational opinion on this!