Crookes v p2pnet link case goes to Supreme Court
p2pnet view Freedom | P2P:- Vancouver businessman Wayne Crookes (right) is trying to have the decision by BC Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher that linking is not the same as publishing reversed.
He’s been given permission to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The ruling will “probably turn out to be round one of the battle between Vancouver businessman and ex-Green Party of Canada official Wayne Crookes, and those of us who believe freedom of speech online is a right, not a privilege”, I posted in p2pnet last year, going on >>>
I’ve been congratulated as though I had something to do with the ruling. But course, I was just an innocent, Kelleher has decided, spectator. The person who deserves the praise and kudos, and all of the credit, is Dan Burnett, the Vancouver lawyer who acted for me, and who’s also looking after some of the other people Crookes is attacking.
I, Michael Geist, Google, Wikimedia, Pbwiki, Yahoo, MySpace, Openpolitics.ca, Domains by Proxy, Michael Pilling, Hayley Easto, Kate Holloway, Craig Hubley, Frank Cameron, Catharine Johannson, Gareth White and anonymous persons were all sued by Crookes.
The difference was: my case was the only one in which illegal linking, as Crookes would like to see it become, was the charge.
And it’ll certainly have repercussions much further afield.
Hyper-linking is what the net is all about. Without it, the Internet would become a drab and pale facsimile of the exciting news, data and information medium it is today.
Instead, each item would be isolated from every other item, and online defamation lawsuits aimed at anyone and everyone with a web site would instantly become commonplace.
“The issue of whether merely hyperlinking creates defamation liability is important but few people would sue over a mere hyperlink”, says Burnett.
“By granting leave to appeal, I am optimistic the Supreme Court is signalling that it is interested in the bigger question of how far liability extends on the internet. If so, it will be grappling with the most important question in the law of internet defamation.”
David Fewer, director of the CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic), says he expects the clinic to intervene as a friend to the court.
“We don’t expect Crookes to win”, he told me, going on >>>
In my view, the legal community interested in this case by and large agrees that the BCSC and BCCA decisions got it right: mere hyperlinking alone does not amount to a republication importing liability.
I’d also argue that the minority in at the BCCA was too strict in drawing an “inference of publication” of the defamatory material in your publication of the link. To hold otherwise, on either point, would have a profoundly chilling effect on speech.
The Internet works through links – in this case, to allow liability as well as information to flow through those links would be to undermine the internet’s promise as a communication medium.
UPDATE: Also see Wayne Crookes wants to freeze the net
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
April, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorship in your area.
April 1st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
For us law dumb people, how long will this appeal and stuff take? Another year?
And the AU one?
April 1st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I still don’t get how he can think this. It’s like suing someone for defamation because they told another person about something defamatory. Christ, if that’s illegal, why do news anchors get to report on stories that are defamatory to criminals?
April 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
+1 Sukasa
That is an argument that may carry some significant weight.
And this dude’s name is “Crookes”? A name like that is just begging for defamation anyway! (Hey wait- O_o This isn’t a 4/01 thing, is it? — If not then this guy is utter dingle-berry and he ought to be squashed. )
April 1st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
This isn’t a 4/1 thing, it’s been going on for a while vox.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hi Jon. I just did a search for stories on this. As far as I can see they all say how important the case is, they all name Wayne Crookes and none of them mention P2PNet itself. Go figure.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
^^ Canwest does a reasonable job – http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Supreme+Court+consider+legal+implications+hyperlinks/2753554/story.html – and so does Slyck – http://www.slyck.com/story1934_Defamation_Canada_p2pnet_and_You
Cheers!
April 1st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Here is a good one – http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2753615
April 1st, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Funnt that he dropped his law suit against Michael Geist, google, and not you.
April 1st, 2010 at 8:11 pm
@RW
Great thing about precedent is that it can be built by going after the lowest hanging fruit (in this case, the fruit that has limited finances to pay for expensive legal fees) and then leveraged against the more challenging ‘targets’.
April 1st, 2010 at 8:16 pm
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/788778–supreme-court-to-hear-link-libel-case
It’s also being covered by the Canadian press. Interesting story you have Jon. Amazing that they couldn’t even name the site instead just said a “…a canadian site”
April 1st, 2010 at 8:26 pm
http://digg.com/d31NI3L
April 1st, 2010 at 9:04 pm
@ Chris:
Who are you calling a low hanging fruit?
Cheers!
April 1st, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“Low-hanging fruit”
(?!?!)
…Nope! I’m not going there!
Not on the “low hanging”… Not on the “fruit”.
Uh uh… no!
April 1st, 2010 at 11:50 pm
To more correctly state it: He dropped his same lawsuit against Michael Geist, Google, Wiki, then lost to Jon Newton and is still going after Jon Newton after losing.
This is like legal harassment.
Seems like someone isn’t after Jon Newton for a stupid link, but rather something else.
April 2nd, 2010 at 9:37 am
This one gets it right too – http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018288517
Cheers!
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
So if this jerk loses is this the end of it or can he come after you again?
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:55 am
Gregory Roach, Wayne Crookes; your enemies have comic names. Who’s next, Jimmy Rat?
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
This is a complete insanity and there are two reasons for this:
1) Absence of control: If I post a link to some external page, I have no control over what is there and this page may change.
2) Transitivity: If this site is considered to be guilty in the libel for posting links then would any site having links to this site also guilty etc? Going to http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/decisions/index-eng.asp we find a link to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html and then to http://www.droit.umontreal.ca/pages_diverses/english.html a followed by then http://www.umontreal.ca/ and one can guess that eventually we will come to a site involved in something really bad
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
A case I know of took almost 14 months from having leave to appeal granted to the final decision. The case was totally different, but of general interest and many people applied to intervene, which will probably happen in this case, too. That means that much more material for the judges to consider, so lengthens the time involved.
April 2nd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
As a frequent poster and ardent supporter of on-line Net Freedom sites such as Michael Geist’s blog, Open Media.ca and, as it relates to the telecom companies’ increasing concentration and control of our media, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting… I see this Crookes case as far more than just a crank’s attempted shafting of Internet Neutrality and Free Speech… but part of a far more sinister agenda by the Blue Meanies to potentially criminalize both critics and consumers alike for creatively utilizing the very technologies they’ve hyped and oversold us for zeitgeist decades.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I think I have to agree with Jack.
There is more at play here than a stupid link
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:44 pm
If this had happened this year the boot would be on another foot as your site is no longer hosted in Canada and therefore he has no claim of jurisdiction for his civil case.
However as most of us older readers know this is an old case that this guy lost and now we are simply seeing the “sour grapes” syndrome in my opinion.
We must all spread this news far and wide to publicise the case and just why its necessary to defend Jon and in turn ourselves from those who have no good grace and merely believe throwing money again and again at a case will buy you a judgement in your favour, I believe the law is not as transparently corrupt as Mr Crook likes to believe.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Collection of links on this (including ones from above):
Canadian Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iPd90rT0Bsxe8O2OBYe1d_jcSlnA
Nanaimo Daily News
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=2753554
Two from CanWest:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Supreme+Court+consider+legal+implications+hyperlinks/2753554/story.html
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/court+hear+case/2755642/story.html
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/02/supreme-libel-links.html
National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2753615
Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/788778–supreme-court-to-hear-link-libel-case
CTV
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100401/libel_online_100401/20100401?hub=SciTech
Quebecor Media
http://technology.canoe.ca/2010/04/01/13441446-cp.html
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/01/13440096.html
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/04/01/13440341.html
Any more?
April 2nd, 2010 at 9:51 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/02/supreme-libel-links.html
Now CBC is covering it. Late as usual, but better than not at all.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Wayne Crookes is acting like a person has complete control over what is on the content at the link. We will have to wait for the reason for the ruling from the Supreme Court, but he will lose.