p2pnet wins landmark ‘linking’ defamation case
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- I’m proud to say that, thanks wholly to the expertise of Vancouver lawyer Dan Burnett, p2pnet is now part of precedent-setting legal decision of primary importance to online freedom of speech in Canada.
Following a landmark decision by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher, p2pnet is the victor in a case in which Vancouver businessmen Wayne Crookes, once an important federal Green Party of Canada official, tried to claim I defamed him by linking to articles he didn’t like.
That amounted to publication, he maintained.
Shortly after the case was heard in Vancouver this August, “I headed this post Wayne Crookes v p2pnet,” I said, going on, “But maybe I should have called it Wayne Crookes v Ted Nelson because it includes a number of words and phrases highlighted and underlined in blue.”
They’re links, the “genius” of the Net, I said, continuing »»»
That’s how well-known Canadian media lawyer Dan Burnett, who’s defending me against defamation charges brought by Vancouver businessman and ex-Green Party of Canada financier Wayne Crookes, describes them.
He [Crookes] wants the Net frozen.
Solid.
Here’s another comment from Burnett in another defamation case in which he’s also acting for me:
For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English speaking world.
Crookes claims I defamed him when I linked to sites containing articles which, well, defamed him, he says.
If he wins, it’ll be quite literally the end of online freedom of speech in Canada.
But he didn’t win.
“According to Mr. Newton, he is not interested in the Green Party issues,” writes Kelleher in his decision to dismiss the lawsuit, going on:
“Rather, his interest is in free speech and the internet. He posted a reference to the existence of the lawsuit and its implications for free speech on the internet. There was no comment about Mr. Crookes’ character or integrity.”
The issue was whether or not anyone followed the hyperlinks posted on p2pnet, he said, continuing »»»
Without proof that persons other than the plaintiff visited the defendant’s website, clicked on the hyperlinks, and read the articles complained of, there cannot be a finding of publication.
However, warned Kelleher, “I do not wish to be misunderstood. It is not my decision that hyperlinking can never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site.
“For example, if Mr. Newton had written ‘the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here’ and ‘here’ is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.”
Will Crookes appeal?
Probably.
Please click here for the full decision.
In the meanwhile, definitely stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Woohoo \o/
October 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“For example, if Mr. Newton had written ‘the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here’ and ‘here’ is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.”
This is still troubling.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“might lead” not “would lead”
October 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
This could be pretty bad for someone else who is suing P2Pnet
October 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Congrats!
October 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
What happens if the remote site changed the linked page to include defamatory statements? (Ex: Wikipedia)
October 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Great to hear. In a world where our freedoms are being taken away, it’s nice to know that sometimes one can prevail who fights for one’s rights.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
>This is still troubling.
Not really, because in that case the statement is a lie which intends to damage the reputation of the person in question. Context is always important.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Congrats, really good to see
October 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
This is just one big self-brag.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Congratulations! That’s got to be a relief.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Great! This helps.
From now on, if anyone sues over something as ridiculous as a link in a blogroll, a judge can use this case as precedent to throw the lawsuit out at an earlier stage. This helps a bit with SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits.
Next, we need a national statute that punishes those who launch vexatious torts attacking citizen media, volunteers and the like working in the public interest.
California has anti-SLAPP legislation.
There’s still several Crookes lawsuit in the wings.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Interesting twist on the “making available” argument.
Apparently the legality/liability of offsite linking depends on the type of (’illegal’) content being linked to.
In general, it would seem that:
posting (offsite) links that lead to INFRINGING content —-> statutory crime, liability
posting (offsite) links that lead to CHILDPORN content —-> statutory crime, liability
posting (offsite) links that lead to DEFAMATORY content —> no crime, no liability
October 28th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Congrats Jon
Anything to spread the truth about anything or anyone is a definite plus. I like the KISS rule [Keep It Simple Stupid]. I this case it translates to “be responsible for what you do or be exposed”. No I don’t know who originally said it
You deserve full bragging rights and KUDOS to you.
If link’s content should change it’s the links owner’s fault.
I definitely agree with anon about anti-SLAPP. I think anyone who starts a frivolous suit should pay 10% of their gross worth and any costs incurred when they are found to be … [in my opinion] greedy lying manipulating idiots.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:22 am
That was the news we all wanted to hear. I realise it’s not the end of the story, but it’s a good chunk of it. It’s a pity you had to live under the cloud for so long.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Oh, I almost forgot. You have just made the national legal internet news of Michael Geist
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3473/125/
October 28th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Good job. I hope you countersued for legal costs.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Jon – congratulations on you and Dan Burnett setting a significant precedent. Paragraphs [24] and [34] of the judgment clearly spell out the rights and wrongs when hyperlinking, and thus this matter has now been defined. This is a great result.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“Good job. I hope you countersued for legal costs.”
Add to that damages. Being sued causes real emotional and time damages.
Go get them, just to discourage the next persecutor, whether plaintiff or lawyer, who wants to get some easy unearned defamation money.
Congrats.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Congrats!
I also hope you get money for damages!
October 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Dan Burnett, the lawyer for p2pnet has done an interview, explaining why the case matters for the future of the net. He says that there is a chance of an appeal against the judge’s ruling: http://www.newslab.ca/?p=114
October 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Awesome! HUGE Congrats!
Also, 2nding what Dreddsnik says
One down, one to go.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Reader’s Write, look at how California’s anti-SLAPP provisions were misused in the JMRI case. Given that context, they give me far less comfort than they do you.