In Canada, hyperlinking isn’t the same as publishing
Hyperlinking to allegedly defamatory material can’t be construed as publishing it, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
“The internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression,” the panel decided.
“The potential ‘chill’ in how the internet functions could be devastating, since primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to another article over whose changeable content they have no control.”
Or as Logan put it in a in a Readers Write, “Jon, Liz and everyone else, grab a bottle of bubbly and go to town!!!
“The Supreme Court has decided UNANIMOUSLY, yes I said, UNANIMOUSLY that INTERNET LINKS ARE
I was up at 5:30 AM find out whether or not the Canadian justice system had let me down in Crookes vs Newton, the notorious Internet hyperlinking case.”
But this morning of all mornings, I couldn’t go online. But this is nothing new and in the meanwhile, I didn’t know if I owed Wayne Crookes a lot of money in damages because the Canadian Supreme Court justices has found in his favour.
We couldn’t discover what the problem was because enquiries to Shaw, my ISP produced only “we are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls”. However, a call from the CBC revealed I’ d won.
As I told the reporter, I felt vindicated. It was an indication that Canada is a place where freedom speech prevails.
When I finally did manage to get a connection, the nice lady on the other end explained it was a provision issue, whatever that means.
Shaw has been doing ‘ upgrades’ in our area I was tuned into the CBC as we drove our daughter, Emma, to the school bus, but there was nothing on the case.
At just gone seven o’clock, I was still none the wiser — until I got a call from Jennifer at Shaw tech support telling me I was back online.
“Man, I’d love to see ol’ Crookes face this morning when he gets the decision”, said Logan going on .
“It should wipe the smug look off his face once and for all.
“He gambled the whole wad and came up craps. Here’s the link to the decision and now it’s safe to say, “CONGRATULATIONS TO JON and his lawyer who stood up for Freedom of Speech against a bully, who thought that he could say that linking to a story that put him in unfavorable light was the same as publishing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/19/pol-scoc-hyperlink.html
For now, Wayne Crookes, wants me to pay him what will be, if he gets his way, an inordinate amount of money for something I haven’t done”, I wrote just after the hearing, continuing,
“Others of them, a panel of legal experts chosen for their wisdom and knowledge of Canada’s archaic defamation laws, were to decide if that’d happen.
The setting was the federal Supreme Court of Canada.
Factums – 33412
Appellants Wayne-Crookes-et-al.pdf
Respondent Jon-Newton.pdf
‘Awesome’ is a word much-over used in the 21st digital century. But in this instance, it can be accurately applied.
The presiding judges had an opportunity no Canadians have ever had before.– the awesome responsibility of confirming to the world, clearly and unequivocally, that Canada is somewhere people can speak their minds openly and without fear, as it’s said to be; or, they’ll allow Crookes to prevail, in which case they’ll bring a dark shroud down on Canada.
Black hole in CyberSpace
A while back, a mainstream media reporter asked me what the case meant to me.
“The ability to refer to something by linking to it is as fundamental to the Internet – to the newest media – as computers themselves”, I said among other things. “Without it, the net becomes a void — a black hole in CyberSpace.”
For millions of other Canadians the internet means freedom — freedom to communicate with each other, freedom to learn, freedom to share, freedom to explore, freedom to say what they want, when they want, without fear, I said.
And I truly believe that.
I’m a very ordinary person — a father with a wife and a daughter. And this is all about the rights of ordinary people.
Was I nervous at the hearing? Extremely. But I didn’t have a choice. I’ve been writing about freedom of speech for years and when Crookes demanded I take down a link to a link which linked to online posts which he claims defamed him, the only thing I could do was refuse.
And I’d do it again.
But having said that, I don’t believe my refusal amounts to anything special. It wasn’t a deliberate act of defiance initiated by me. The article in which the contested link featured was talking about freedom of speech. My refusal to remove the link sprang directly from my philosophy that information not only should be, but must be, freely shared.
But I should also make it clear I believe in freedom of speech within commonly agreed bounds of decency and morality.
Meanwhile, I just happened to be the one Crookes targeted for linking — and only linking — among a flood of other defamation cases he’d launched.
Freedom to link
On December 8, I was in a room with more than just a few lawyers, many (most?) of them, representing corporations such as Google, eBay and Yahoo, They were there because, to be blunt, a decision in Crookes’ favourWould have had a potentially disastrous affect on the vast commercial interests which depend on free linking.
However, also present will be people who care about freedom of speech for itself, such as the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), Canadian Civil Liberties Association, BC Civil Liberties Association.
Arguing directly against Crookes’ legal representatives on my behalf and, by default, for you as well, will be my lawyer, Dan Burnett, a brilliant media specialist. And he’ll be doing that without pay.
For me, it was an experience I would definitely rather not Have had, and it weighed on me.
Will online freedom of speech survive in Canada?
Now we know.
Hyperlinking to allegedly defamatory material can’t be construed as publishing it, the Supreme Court has ruled.
I’ll publish the decision in full tomorrow.
Cheers! And thanks …
Jon Newton – p2pnet
October 19th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Congratulations, and well fought
October 19th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
We’re happy for you Jon. Congrats. You and your lawyer made a big difference for everyone.
We could only imagine the choice words you had for Shaw in the back of your mind, hehe
October 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Congratulation! What a victory for freedom of speech!
This mean that sites such as the pirate bay and the score of site linking to information (such as the 100s of sites illegally shut down by this traitorous Obama/Joe bit me administration paid and corrupted by the corporation of entertainment parasites) shall be legal in Canada just as they are in Spain.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
@RW above,
No. You are taking the ruling out of context.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Congratulations Jon! That’s one thing less on your mind and this decision benefits everyone. Nice to see that money for once didn’t corrupt the legal system.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
“…You are taking the ruling out of context.”
Technically, yes, but…
I can see the same logic being demanded in future arguments about other 3rd-party liabilities. Now that we’ve got an actual ruling in the books, the rest may not be too much of stretch, if presented properly.
This ruling’s huge!
Without a doubt, this been the most important case, to-date, to win, for the sake of a functioning Internet.
I thank you, Jon, for having the tumerity to see this thing through, and I’m sure the Internet will thank you as well. Maybe not so much today, but as more and more become aware of what, exactly, transpired here. What you’ve done for all our sakes is huge!
October 19th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
A short item on the talk radio news this lunchtime here in Ottawa; Wayne Crookes mentioned as the loser but no mention of Jon or p2pnet by name.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I was searching all over for the article in question and found it
http://web.archive.org/web/20060720190408/http://p2pnet.net/story/9387
October 19th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Way to go!!
October 19th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Cheers Jon & Canada for leading the effort. I know you paid a big price and hope this will buoy you!
October 19th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Hooray and amen!
October 19th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Congrats Jon. Its one less thing yu and your family have to worry about. It would be nice to beable to file a lawsuit against Wayne to recoup sme of the money you had to spend to fight this. But that would only lead to spending more money and more worries. Maybe a good time for the readers of p2pnet to donate if they are able. I wish I was able to. Im just glad that there is a site like yours that tries to let people know about certain things that mainstream media doesnt talk about. I always wish that one day when I read a newspaper that there will actually be a “Tech” section.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Love you Jon.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
ANALYSIS | The law and hyperlinking
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/19/f-vp-henry-libel-law.html
When you create a hyperlink to a web page that has defamatory content, are you liable for it?
The Supreme Court of Canada has now given us the answer, and like most things in law the answer is both simple and potentially complicated.
According to Justice Rosalie Abella, who wrote for the majority, “a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as ‘publication’ of the content to which it refers.”
In other words, creating it on your web page does not, by itself, make you liable for what might be displayed on another website when someone clicks through.
Never is a strong word, rarely used in law. For those who care about free expression on the internet, the ruling is certainly welcome. If you read the whole decision, though, there’s more to the story. Continues…
October 19th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Thanks Tom — I think
October 19th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Thank you, Jon.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Congratulations, Jon!
October 19th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
This is great news for this writer.
It is a big step against the tyranny of lawsuits and their creators.
Happy for you.
October 19th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Gratz! Common sense prevails!
October 19th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Congrats to Jon and Canada! This should give everyone hope that not all those in power of courts are idiots. I very much bet this is a big relief for you, Jon. Very well fought. I congradulate you.
October 19th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
A great victory for Jon, but the rest of us are the big winners
Hope this helps your health.
Thanks Jon.
October 19th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Thanks to you Jon and your lawyer, for having fought this case.
October 20th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Congratulations Jon, we knew you would win this
October 20th, 2011 at 9:49 am
So does this mean you can counter sue and re-coup costs now? I think I remember you mentioning before that your lawyer was doing this for cheap (or free) – I’m sure he’d appreciate it and it would help you out with your own finances a bit.
October 20th, 2011 at 11:34 am
I too would like to know what will happen regarding the large sums of money spent opposing Mr. Crookes. I’ve always assumed the looser picked up the tab but I’m also sure that’s a bit simplistic. Being a lawyer, can Mr. Crookes weasel out of paying? I hope not. But when I read about Righthaven working so hard to avoid paying up, I wonder.
October 20th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Jon Newton hailed as Internet hero after bittersweet victory
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/sued+hyperlinks+defamatory+sites+Supreme+Court/5578595/story.html
There is a certain irony that the man hailed as a hero for Internet free speech had to hear of his Supreme Court of Canada victory over the phone because his Internet was down.
For Lake Cowichan’s Jon Newton, the court decision Wednesday that ruled he couldn’t be sued for hyperlinks on his website – said to be linked to defamatory material – marked the end of a legal battle that began with a 2006 post on Newton’s site entitled Free Speech in Canada.
…snip…
Advertising revenue for his p2pnet news website – which supported Newton, his wife Liz and their 15-year-old daughter – dried up. Last spring he suffered two heart attacks, had quadruple bypass surgery and suffered a stroke. His vision is now failing so badly that he can no longer type on his computer and instead uses voice recognition software.
“It has been very hard for us to keep it going,” said Newton, who with Liz launched a new business making Dad’s Westcoast Wildfire Awesome Sauce, a hot sauce sold on Vancouver Island and in Vancouver.
“That is pretty well our sole income, whereas before it was advertising. It has been tough and now that I am sick it is getting tougher.”
Newton was quick to defer praise to his family and his lawyer Dan Burnett of Owen Bird, who took the case pro bono.
“They say I am a hero but the real hero is Liz,” he said. “She has been really amazing, she never gave up.”
Continues…
Thumbs up!
October 20th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I’m in the U.S., I followed your case with interest. I applaude you for your efforts, congratulations. Defamation is rampant on the internet, sometimes to the point of causing actual physical death. Such is prevelent in the penny stock world where the bashers main tool is defamation and in many cases have caused fledgling companies to colapse before they could market a life saving drug or treatment, and causes thousands to loose million of dollars. Defamation should be prosecuted where and when it occurs, however, as in your case, simply discussing a case of defamation and providing links to the subject at hand, is not defamation and is informative and educational for the public at large. I’m glad the courts knew the difference.
Once again, congratulations.
October 20th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Congrats Jon, glad that you won in the end. Must feel good to have it all behind you
October 20th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Congratulations Jon, well done.
October 21st, 2011 at 4:26 am
You had every excuse to fold and remove those links Jon, just like many others around the web do when confronted with such threats. You could have just said I have a family to worry about and people would have understood and not lost any respect for you. You didn’t though, you and Liz stood up and fought the good fight all the way to the end and won. A great example to your daughter and to us all.
Congratulations, you deserved it.
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:00 pm
CONGRATULATIONS, JON!!
…Sorry, couldn’t help myself. I’m very excited for you and for the people of Canada–nay, the world–in general. You were like the bright light in the darkness of a world ruled by the chosen and avaricious few. It’s really bad here in the US, but I followed your case and prayed for the best, and surprise, surprise, it happened! I knew you would win, actually. This victory also gives me and many other members of the unwashed masses a HUGE surge of hope. Maybe a better future without corporate greed and corruption is possible and this just proves that. Savor your victory, for this is just one victory that may set off other victories for the common good.
October 24th, 2011 at 7:08 am
Congratulations, Jon and Dan. All Canadians owe you guys a debt of gratitude, whether they want to admit it or not. I fairly certain you would win this case, provided logic and reason hadn’t been tossed out the window. Some of the laws and previous ruling the judges rely on are truly archaic, and many of them have no place in the information age. Makes me thankful we have brave people with good old Canadian spirit and determination taking bullies like Mr. Crookes head on. Like others have said, you could have folded and removed the links. A lot of people would have out of fear, myself included.
Has Mr. Crookes given any quotes to the media yet about his resounding loss, or is he hiding from them? If it is the latter, one has to wonder what his real motives were to begin with. If you truly believe in what you’re doing and feel it is right, then there should be no reason to shirk from the limelight. This inquiring mind wants to know!
I also wonder, do you think the stress of this case from start to finish had an negative impact on your health? I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. I’d have suffered a breakdown by now if it had been me trying to defend myself, and I already suffer from enough painful medical problems as it is. Perhaps you should have a serious look at your options, as others have suggested. While it was honorable of Dan to provide his time and expertise at no cost, we all know that nothing is ever truly free, anything having to do with law especially. Recouping not only for losses, but mental anguish as well, might be worth pursuing. Especially if you do feel it did indeed have an impact on the health and state of mind of not only you, but your whole family as well. Bullies should NEVER prosper!
October 26th, 2011 at 2:17 am
[...] Geist Right. well, let’s start by saying that I think this decision that involved p2p.net and the potential liability for linking was a great decision from the Supreme Court of Canada and I think one of the things that [...]
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Congrats, a victory well deserved! Crookes, like many of the wealthy is used to trampling on people he perceives as getting in his way; I would love to see his pickle puss now. For once in his life he was told no, and I bet he doesn’t like it one bit.