"Pilling's articles relied on the obvious pun here, using titles like 'Friends of Crookes' and 'Gang of Crookes.' In covering the free speech aspects of the case, Newton linked to the articles in question. Crookes demanded Newton remove those links, saying that Newton himself could be liable for defamation. Newton refused; Crookes sued.
Jon Newton
Newton's piece was read by less than 2,000 people, but the lawsuit spawned by that article has now progressed to Canada's highest court, where the judges will rule for the first time on the liability that Internet users have for the hyperlinks they create."
Unbelievable that this has reached the Supreme Court. Crooke argues that a hyperlink is the same as embedding the content of the destination link into the origin document. This is garbage. The hyperlink itself is the information in the document: that it exists, and what web site it resides on. Clicking on a link is the same as tracking a footnote down to the source document and retrieving it. Just because the retrieval is much easier than walking the aisles of a library does not change the volition of the act.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment