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.'"

Comments

Hmm

[somersault]

I can't remember the URL for goatse.cx, or I'd totally post it.

Finally some sense.

[sherriw]

Hopefully this extends to the fact that linking to pirated content is not piracy.

Re:Finally some sense.

[Moryath]

The terms you're looking for are:

Slander
Libel
Defamation

Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...

Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.

Aggrigation Sites

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:Which side were the Greens on?

[Retardical_Sam]

The case had nothing to do with his association to the Green Party, it was in relation to his private business. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/19/pol-scoc-hyperlink.html?cmp=rss

Re:easy way to abuse this:

[canajin56]

No, the ruling still allows for a link to be defamatory if the intent is apparent. The reasoning behind the ruling is that if you link to a page, it can be changed by the host so it is senseless to view the link as your endorsement of all past and future content. Say, you link to a guy's blog and he makes a defamatory post after you link to it. Or, you link to it because you like what he said today, but further down on the page you linked he has defamatory posts you didn't notice.

However, ruling that having a link does not constitute endorsement of the content of the link doesn't make all links OK. If context makes your endorsement apparent, then just because it's a link does not protect you.

Re:Which side were the Greens on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the Green Party of Canada has the same platform as the Green Party of Australia?

What about IFRAMEs and linked images?

[mdmkolbe]

Technically IFRAME and IMG are just links, but would they qualify as a more affirmative action and thus constitute defamation under this ruling?

That isn't, actually, what the court said...

[DougBTX]

From the link:

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.

Re:easy way to abuse this:

[m.ducharme]

Ironically, your newspaper example wouldn't have worked that way in Canada, up until Grant v. Torstar, [2009]. Previous to this, it certainly was possible for the reporter to get hit with a libel suit for reporting libelous statements. The new law under Grant sets up a new defence called responsible communication. The reporter or newspaper (or blogger) must still behave responsibly when reporting proven libelous statements made by others and must show that she acted responsibly, with the following factors to be taken into account by the jury:

The seriousness of the allegation
The public importance of the matter
The urgency of the matter
The status and reliability of the source
Whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported
Whether inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable
Whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“Reportage”)

Re:One word...

[denis-The-menace]

They know what is right but they will look the other way for money.

Lawyers and lobbyists on staff= Tools of the 1%

Re:Which side were the Greens on?

[langarto]

However, the guy is a member of the green party. If he thinks that linking to something is the same as publishing it, I would not want him near any position of power. Hence, I would only consider voting for the greens if they expelled him from the party (and if I were German).