Top court rules web links not illegal (Supreme Court of Canada)

Sun Media ^ | 2011-10-19 | Kris Sims

[Clive]

OTTAWA - Creating an online link to defamatory content created by someone else does not constitute publishing that content.

In a decision that could have chilled the way the Internet works, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bloggers and Twitter users are not breaking the law by merely linking to another site that contains libelous or defamatory material.

“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.”

The case stems from a dispute in British Columbia where Wayne Crookes

claimed he was defamed by two different links on site run by Jon Newton.

Civil Liberties organizations, Internet advocates and media lawyers all argued against Crookes, saying outlawing linking would hobble the pace of information online.

Both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that simply making a link does not endorse or publish the original defamatory material.

The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld those lower court decisions.

[Clive]

Here is a hyperlink to the decision:

Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47

[Clive]

-

[perfect_rovian_storm]

[Phlap]

Hard to believe that the SCoC got one right. Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut. lol

[perfect stranger]

OK...that’s really creepy.

[Captain Rhino]

Yes, but don’t celebrate too much. Two of the justices wrote that if you write any text in your blog/website/post saying you agree with the information at the link, you are still liable for prosecution under Canadian defamation statutes.

Link only: no defamation; link plus endorsing text: possible defamation.

[oh8eleven]

“Limiting their usefulness ...would have the effect of seriously restricting ... freedom of expression.”
Freedom of expression? Not in a country where the queers have forced Canadian radio stations from playing "Money For Nothing."

[hattend]

marking to steal later

[Para-Ord.45]

Got it right, by only half.

They placed a HUGE caveat in their decision.