Comments on: Wayne Crookes v p2pnet: update

By: John

John — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:26:42 +0000

This is so ludicrous.
All Canadians should then sue Harper, he keeps being defamatory and homophobic about gays.
Oh yeah, we cannot sue him, he’s part of the whole dictatorship!
Canadians that are rich don’t know what to do with their time so they try to squeeze the blood from little people so they can feed themselves. No, there are no laws against vampirism yet! It’s normal, THEY pass those laws…

By: Dusty Parrott

Dusty Parrott — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:45:42 +0000

If I tell a man that the man across the street says that the he is stupid, does that mean that I think he is stupid?
I think not!
If that were true it would be literally impossible to even create a case on defamation, as creating the case forces one to point out or “link to,” the defamatory statement, thus being defamatory against oneself, or, under the assumption that that makes him a publisher, agree with the defamation, therefore not making it defamatory at all.

IE
I link to an article that says I am stupid in order to bring this to court as a defamatory article. In the process of linking/gathering the information that says I am stupid, I become the publisher of the article that says I am stupid. Therefore, since I published the article, I must agree with my publication, “I am stupid,” and so I cannot say that that is defamatory against me, for to do so would be to say that I am defamatory to myself. QED

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:57:13 +0000

Crookes is an arsehole.

The above sentence is not a link to anything and therefore must be true.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:40:42 +0000

Main thing, my case is the only one in which Crookes claims I defamed him via a link. Just that. Nothing else.

Cheers!

By: ...

... — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:13:35 +0000

1. I thought that in order to “defame” someone, the information posted about them had to be untrue. Was that ever established?

2. Jon, how come you don’t get together with the other defendants and issue a motion to rule these cases as being “similar” thus moving it all under one BIG case. That would be a real win, because then you get the protection of the big boyz’ lawyers! This was what the RIAA was trying to do with their university-student-lawsuit fiasco, in order to save on court processing fees and do less paperwork. In this case however it really is all the same thing…isn’t it? Or is each case different enough that they must be separate?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:53:05 +0000

He should be banned from using the Net under the upcoming “three-strikes rule”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:41:18 +0000

I’m a bit curious if any one can say a bit more on the ‘reserved judgement’ thing.
Waiting for possible appeals on other grounds than the verdict isn’t liked?
Not wanting to spoil the other cases up at the same time (if similar, or the fellows other cases are in proccess)?
Waiting for some ‘legal community 2 cents’ to be chipped in?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:32:44 +0000

Linking is publishing!? Thats right up there with the internet being a series of tubes.

So if say nizkor.org, links to the sites its debunking, it is in fact publishing them… and therefor endorsing them..? Or if xenu.net links to scientology.org, its being hypocritical? They didn’t make those sites (practical definition of publishing) much less endorse them.

A link is just a director. its like he’s arguing, pointing your finger in a direction and saying ‘that way’ is the same as creating and running the place your pointing to. Its absurd. This guy has no case at all.

My head hurts.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:18:56 +0000

Let us say it is found you are guilty of defamation of Crookes by link, as an example. The only different between a click link and a pasted link into the browser is the users method of activation; click as opposed to copy and paste. So if one is open to defamation, so is the other. Both would lead to a possible site containing this info.

So if this is allowed to be read as defamation, then the internet ceases to be in Canada where this defamation is so widely allowed as a possibility. Surely the judge understands the ramifications and if he doesn’t then the lawyer should make very sure it is brought up in the course of proceedings.

It just doesn’t sound likely that this has a possibility of success, any more than a news article that states Joe Public was busted for some illegal act and stating what that act would be.

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:45:24 +0000

^ ^ Yeah, people with thin skins shouldn’t be on the net anyways.

By: few bux

few bux — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:42:31 +0000

I hope the judge bans him from using the net