The decision is here. For anyone that doesn't know, Green Party activist Wayne Crookes sued a number of people, including Michael Geist for linking to material he considered defamatory. It was not too far from the truth to say he was trying to "sue the entire internet". Luckily, at least one of the judges in one of the cases decided that this would not stand.
I haven't read the whole decision, but from this:
[84] I agree, as well, that the circumstances of a case may add more so as to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to demonstrate that a particular hyperlink is an invitation or encouragement to view the impugned site, or adoption of all or a portion of its contents. For example, in Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), referred to in Carter, evidence of the defendant pointing to a placard with content was held to be sufficient evidence of publication to go to a jury. So a statement to the effect “N is described at [hyper link]” may itself incorporate a libel so as to be defamatory.
...suggests that if you say something in support of the defamatory material at the other end of the link then you could be in trouble, but merely linking to, and perhaps even describing the content on, a page carrying defamatory material, is not enough.
Hopefully this has positive implication for the case against Mark of Section 15.
PS. There is very little here that is pertinant to the Warman defamation suits.
h/t.
"Green Party candidate Wayne Crookes"
ReplyDeleteHe was never a candidate. He sat in various non-paid positions in the Party 2004-2005, and was the major lender of funds to the party for several years.
I wrote on this decision as well. The implications are still settling in. I just got off the phone with another defendant and he pointed out that part of the ruling appears to indicate that our courts' mantra that anything published on the Internet is distributed "world-wide" is a little much, that, as we all know, a lot of material is barely viewed. So the just over 1000 page views Jon had for the page in question doesn't mean that anyone actually used the links.
Note that there has yet to be a ruling that any material Crookes issuing over is actually libelous.
Activist, then.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete