Canadian Supreme Court To Decide If Linking Is Publishing 82
An anonymous reader writes "Will Canada become a black hole in cyberspace? Or will it remain a country of which former prime minister Wilfred Laurier once said, 'Canada is free and freedom is its nationality.' According to p2pnet's Jon Newton, that'll be for the nine members of the federal Supreme Court to decide. Newton was sued by ex-Green Party of Canada financier Wayne Crookes for allegedly defaming him by linking to a story Crookes didn't like. Newton is now back home on Vancouver Island after traveling to Ottawa for the SCC hearing. Was it win or lose? It's an 'Epic Fail' for Crookes, Newton says. The Supreme Court reserved its decision. Its rulings are 'typically released six to eight months after a hearing,' according to the CBC in its report on the case. Says Ars Technica, 'As CIPPIC puts it, if Newton loses, the ruling could "chill hyperlinking which in turn undermines the communicative force of the Internet and deters innovation of new, expression-enhancing platforms that may not develop due to fear of defamation actions."'"
This could end Google in Canada (Score:3)
This could end Google in Canada
Re: (Score:1)
Worst case, any link you would click would have a transit page stating the clicked link is unrelated to the originating page.
Re:This could end Google in Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I have to explain how the whole Internet is supposed to work for every link on my site, just because some clueless, easily offended n00b doesn't have a reason to sue?
That's retarded.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This could end Google in Canada
Darn! Because I was going to put on my canadian resume "I publish for Google" and then link to them from my facebook. Well, if Google is about to get copyright pwned by Canada for linking to the entire internet, I guess I can at least say "I publish for the New York Times" and link to them lol.
Re: (Score:1)
Careful, that may be copyright infringement! (Only the copyright holder is allowed to publish)
Not going to happen (Score:2)
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/1.html [justice.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and by that reasoning, all libel laws would be unconstitutional. But they're not.
Re: (Score:1)
Trumped by 1.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeh, I paused when writing that post, but hey, I'm looking for help, and what's the point in *not* asking?
If no one has anything helpful to say, it will just get modded offtopic, and then my comment won't bother anyone, and that's what the mod system is for.
It'd be easy to lose the battle against software patents - just do nothing. Sometimes I comment to be informative, sometimes I comment just to shamelessly ask for help.
If decision wrong, it won't stand (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Supreme Court rules the wrong way, the decision won't stand.
Everybody from Google to Bell and Rogers will lobby heavily against this. This would certainly kill Google's business in Canada outright, seriously harm Microsoft through MSN/Windows Live and even result in less internet subscriptions for Bell and Rogers. Also, any Canadian news site would be doing a full court press against this. What's more, I don't see how any powerful companies would benefit from this wrong decision.
Rest assured that all these companies would lobby Parliament to change the laws so that this decision gets reversed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, this is a classic among powers that be.
You simple make something very common illegal and then you don't enforce the law.
This way you make a lot of people criminals and you can cherry pick whoever you want to go after.
It is a very common way to get rid of the whole inconvient equal to the law thingy..
Captcha: Litigate
It affects the government...it won't stand (Score:2)
You simple make something very common illegal and then you don't enforce the law.
Apart from the fact that this tactic does not seem to have worked historically in Canada the problem is that this is civil law not criminal. Hence "enforcement" is up to someone with enough money to afford lawyers. I imagine it will stand until the content on a website that the government itself links to is found objectionable. Assuming the website owner does not have deep pockets it will be the government itself getting sued and then watch how fast the law gets changed.
The only questions are: will the
Re: (Score:3)
The only questions are: will the supreme court be smart enough to see this (it could affect them too if they link to external websites...assuming that you can actually sue a court?) and, if they aren't, whether the government is smart enough to see the consequences and fix them immediately without waiting to get sued.
If it's bad enough, the justices will simply give a current stay on their response. And let the government change the law, if it's really bad. The government will file an appeal and then change the law so it's not so fucked up.
The current justices we have on the supreme court are good, they're smart, and they understand technology for the most part. I'm not really worried about this.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but what I remember of Canadian laws, it's not only not useful but pointless to sue a court, you're suing the branch of the government that deals with the judicial when you sue to complain about a court's behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the SCOC has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to rely on, and they've been pretty clear that "freedom of expression" (albeit with greater limitations than in the US) is not something they want to mess with unless there's a very good reason.
I'd be very surprised if they hobble hyperlinking because some puffed up twit doesn't like what the hyperlink says about him
Apt Analogies (Score:1)
Re:Apt Analogies (Score:4, Insightful)
No, to imply linking is publishing is to imply responsibility for the content at the website published by somebody else. Also the link must divine the future as you would would also deemed to have published all future changes to the web site after having published the link to that site.
Also the judge would have to be clairvoyant in an ruling with regard to your intent when linking to the site and how carefully you perused the contents of the site you linked to.
Publishing a link is publishing the description to that link and the link itself, nothing more nothing less. Any judgement to the contrary represents a corrupt bias to achieve political change whether as a result of corporate of government intervention.
An example a 'hyperlink description' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink [wikipedia.org], I read the first paragraph so that it was loosely be on topic and take no responsibility beyond that, not for the remaining content nor any future changes to that content, for any judge to say that I published the content referred to in the link would be a sure sign of corruption on the part of that judge.
That isn't how responsible courts act (Score:3)
Justice Charron gets it, as did the lower courts. I'm therefor expecting the said "epic failure" for Charon's claim.
In addition, this this is a tempset in a teapot. The article is based on the desire of the news organizations to have something cool to talk about, rather that the recorded behavior of the courts.
In actual practice, courts are disinclined to make sweeping change is how a law is to be interpreted, and instead deal with the problem of "bad cases produce bad law" by writing very narrow verd
Re: (Score:1)
I still don't think this makles it "publishing" for what it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that Cowboy Neal eats babies for breakfast is clearly libelous. Is pointing someone in the direction of such a statement made by someone else libelous? I think it could be.
Re: (Score:2)
But Jordan countered that internet users should be responsible enough to review material and make a judgement before linking to it.
And I don't see anywhere in any of the articles (not exhaustive coverage, admittedly) that anyone has pointed out that content can - and does - change after it is linked to. How can one be held responsible for that?
Must be consistent (Score:2, Interesting)
If they choose that to be the case, then they have to be consistent. Meaning the paper equivalency must also be considered publishing. So no more citing sources in essays.
I must say (Score:3)
Wherever the truth lies in this dispute, that initial linked p2pnet piece is horribly written and non-illuminating. There has to be a better story, not written by a six-year-old, that covers this case.
Re:I must say (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/12/07/hyperlink-supreme-court-defamation-libel.html [www.cbc.ca]
There's a decent one by the CBC. This story doesn't seem to have been picked up much, though.
Perfect - thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you just crashed my irony detector.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you just crashed my irony detector.
That's impossible. Irons don't have operating systems or otherwise run software, so they can't crash.
And as for whether or not linking is publishing...
I hold this truth to be self evident that merely linking to a page such as my Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party 3 Detroit Rock City Demo [youtube.com] is not the same in any way shape or form as actually publishing my Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party 3 Detroit Rock City Demo.
(And don't worry. It is not a goatse link in any way shape or form.)
What a waste (Score:3)
It's like assembling a committee to determine if water is dry.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like assembling a committee to determine if water is dry.
Well, sir, MY water is certainly dry. Yours, however, is simply no cold enough yet.
The answer is: "No way, that's stupid." (Score:3)
If I call the police and "link" them to the address of a burglary in progress, am I committing burglary?
Are the workers that install road signs which "link" bank robbers to the locations of the banks they rob guilty of robbery?
If a library's card catalog "links" a terrorist to a book on chemistry would not the librarians and publishers be guilty of terrorism?
If my website links to a page about ponies, and the domain is later transferred to a porn site, am I a then pornographer until I remove the link?
Did I just make Slashdot.org into the new PirateBay? [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I call the police and "link" them to the address of a burglary in progress, am I committing burglary?
No, you are telling them that a burglary is taking place. With libel, it is the act of telling someone something (that is untrue and damaging to their reputation) that is the offence. So I can see how linking to a libelous statement made by someone else could be the same as making the statement yourself. You are bringing the statement to the attention of a wider audience.
Linking? (Score:2)
Who is Wayne Crookes? (Score:2)
...and why should we care to not make the rest of his existence insignificant except as a footnote in history? He has already achieved all the historical significance he "deserves".
Re: (Score:2)
According to my research, he's some kind of legal&money man who caused a fuck-up in the Green Party and then effectively Streisanded his way into our consciousness.
We wouldn't know the guy is a crook if he wasn't so adamant about attacking freedom of expression. Let's hope he's a crook AND a loser.
Re: (Score:2)
He's an arrogant cocksucker who thinks it's reasonable to ruin the web because somebody pointed out that somebody else said something about him that ruined his feelings.
Fuck you, Wayne!
Re: (Score:2)
what Canada decides?
reading that again it sounds like flamebait, sorry. What I mean is that the internet is an international phenomenon and while Canada or Nicaragua or whoever can decide whatever they want, most web sites and or businesses on the web are not fixed to a physical location. It's like raising corporate taxes. Companies will just go elsewhere or declare that they are doing X thing elsewhere where it is legal/cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
what Canada decides?
reading that again it sounds like flamebait, sorry. What I mean is that the internet is an international phenomenon and while Canada or Nicaragua or whoever can decide whatever they want, most web sites and or businesses on the web are not fixed to a physical location. It's like raising corporate taxes. Companies will just go elsewhere or declare that they are doing X thing elsewhere where it is legal/cheaper.
Tell that to the poor sap who gets sued for linking to someone's Facebook page where a picture of a LOLcat was later changed to a comment stating "John Q. Public is an alocholc and a fagg! ROFL!" People can't run from or change unpleasant laws as easily as corporations do. And dare I say a lot of Slashdotters are Canadian.
It's not as evil as it looks (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the media is making the point of the lawsuit solely about linking. The important point in the lawsuit is whether or not deliberately linking defamatory or libelous content (i.e you know what the linked content it) is the same as spreading defamatory or libelous statements.
The lawsuit is not about links for which you are not aware of the semantic content (i.e. search results from Google).
For example, I find a web page that incorrectly paints you as a pedophile. I link to it, and other likewise defamatory content, spread my link to your associates. I have written no defamatory content myself, but ....
Re: (Score:3)
Precedent (Score:4, Informative)
To help seperate the demafation issue from the linking issue, here is some relevant reading of a precedent about publishing quotations: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html [umontreal.ca]
My read of it: the court leaves the jury a lot of leeway to infer intent of a writer based on common sense ... so the ruling on this new case will probably focus on what new defences (misunderstanding, possible edits of the document linked to, etc) a jury can consider, rather than letting the linker off the hook completely.
Don't Worry, Canadians Are Sane (Score:2)
This post contains the Library of Congress (Score:1)
And this made it to Supreme Court? (Score:1)
Linking can definitely be publishing. (Score:2)
If you show someone else's page in an iframe or frameset, it's copying, even if the user has to click on something to make it appear.
The ethics must be based on the plain appearance of what is going on, not the implementation.
This ends libraries. (Score:1)
To some degree Amazon is indistinguishable from a library card catalog. Search for subject, title, keywords or other index key and copy the ISBN or Dewey Decimal number, submit and magically you have a book via the LINK PROVIDED.
Linking is not publishing (Score:1)