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."

Plagiarism!

[Itninja]

The entire text of this post was lifted from here! [slashdot.org]

Re:Plagiarism!

[JustOK]

and republished here http://tinyurl.com/664efw [tinyurl.com]

Scene in Slashdot Server Room

[blair1q]

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

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

A near infinite collection of simultaneous first posts, while staying on-topic. Kudos to you, good sir!

Re:sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Yoda was canadian!

THE SCOOP IS IN!

Re:footnotes!?

[thermian]

Hyperlinks are more like references rather than footnotes.

Well, they're really like a lot of tube entrances...

Re:where's our focus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pssst: While you were posting, there were some kids on your lawn. Possibly trampling your azaleas.

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. [slashdot.org]

Re:Plagiarism!

[Anonymous Coward]

.... now excuse me while I convert my entire website into hyperlinks...

hmm

[moniker127]

I wish all of my decisions were ten paged!

Re:Not Goodwin

[CastrTroy]

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

Re:Of course not

[retchdog]

Not just defamatory; it would be Bible-libel.

Goatse Defence

[PinkyDead]

"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!"