Blogger Sued, In Part, For Linking To Material Claimed To Be Defamatory
from the link-it-up dept
We've pointed in the past to some rather ridiculous situations in Canada concerning libel law. One key case involved a guy named Wayne Crookes, who not only sued major internet sites like Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia and MySpace for hosting content he believed to be defamatory towards himself, but he also sued Jon Newton of the site P2Pnet.net for merely linking to the content Crookes believed to be defamatory. A court in Canada eventually ruled that merely linking to potentially defamatory material is not defamation, and an appeals court agreed. Last I heard, the case had moved up to the Canadian Supreme Court. That case is still ongoing, but it looks like there may be a similar case brewing as well.Reader JC points us to a short blogpost about another Canadian, named Richard Warman (interestingly, both Warman and Crookes have ties to the Canadian Green Party, though, I'm going to say that's likely a coincidence), who apparently is suing some bloggers for (in part) linking to material he finds defamatory. Unfortunately, in all the sites talking about this, no one seems to be willing to state the full story of the lawsuit, or show the full filing. Instead, they just show parts of the filing. But, at least in that part, it does appear that one of the complaints is that the blog in question linked to a site that Warman believed to be defamatory. It's unclear what else is involved in the lawsuit (and if anyone has the details, please pass them along in the comments). However, just the snippet provided is troubling enough.
Even if the content in question was totally defamatory, it certainly raises some pretty serious questions about whether merely linking to content itself can or should be seen as defamatory as well. As noted in the Newton/Crookes case, so far, Canadian courts have been rejecting such claims, and hopefully that holds up with the Supreme Court ruling. But in the meantime, it certainly sounds like others are still making similar claims, which certainly feel like efforts to stifle freedom of expression.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, free speech, libel, linking, richard warman
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Semi-Related Question
Given the charges of defamation being thrown around, and knowing that you'd have to comply with a valid legal request to disclose commentor information, would someone who knew the full story and stated it be risking themselves to a search and litigate threat on Techdirt? And, legally speaking, would your request for disclosure in comments have any effect?
What I'm wondering (and I'm not saying that you're in any way doing this) is whether bloggers/commentators can get stories they want revealed on their sites w/o opening themselves to risk by getting their communities to do it for them in an anonymous way....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Semi-Related Question
Not asking anyone libel anyone. I'm asking for the details of the lawsuit -- purely factual information, such as the full filing. That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Semi-Related Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Semi-Related Question
It might be worth considering what information techdirt could/would hand over ; even for anonymous comments techdirt records IP addresses of contributers and can link comments from the same source.
If that scares you then techdirt is probably not a good place to spill your info' - you might be better of with a more dedicated and rigorous news site such as Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semi-Related Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linking in the Clear
At least it seems like the courts there are getting it right that linking is fine. However, it really should be that way for everything, not just defamation but also files, webpages, forum posts, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Linking in the Clear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Linking in the Clear
But ...
"Linking to anything anytime should be perfectly legal."
May be stretching it a bit far.
Could I for example link to child pornography on an Elmo fan club website?
While I believe in freedom and linking...Linking to anything anytime is not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Linking in the Clear
As was my original point, you have no control over what you linked to. What if you linked to a website that told you how to cook a mean chicken noodle soup, and then they changed it. Without you rechecking the link you are now unknowingly linking to child porn. That is the point I was trying to make about why it should not be illegal. Under your idea it almost sounds like you would still be liable, even though you didn't know. Perhaps a little clarification on your part for when it isn't okay to link will help me better understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
currently
ITS the users responsibility to click on links that lead to copyright, and illegal activity
if this changes it will destroy whats left of our overpriced, capped to death , throttled internet in canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Three strikes related Nicolas Sarkozy
Not Piracy related Lily Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is entirely non-obvious and isn't helped by the fact that you don't seem to have any actual details of the filing (just hear-say).
For someone who often criticizes reporters I have to say that's a pretty piss-poor performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He admits his limitations and bias rather than to pretend he has none.
Would you rather he just post the story, and not admit he doesn't have the full filing? And then to forget about it, rather than asking for the specific information that would let him figure out what's going on and amend any errors later?
If this were purely a news blog, perhaps he should have the full story before publishing. But he uses this blog to research as well; by asking questions and seeing if anyone in the audience knows the answer. And also for soapboxing, but you knew that; he admits as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It appears he was sued for a few things, and one aspect of that was linking.
This is entirely non-obvious and isn't helped by the fact that you don't seem to have any actual details of the filing (just hear-say).
No, I do have one small part of the filing, which shows that part of the complaint was what the blogger linked to.
Not sure what your complaint is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You only have a rather bad scan of what someone claims to be part of the filing, and you don't know what part and there is not enough context to understand if that is a material part - you don't even consider that there might be some spin involved or a reason why the blogger doesn't include the whole filing (perhaps religion is making you blind ?).
You could probably write a reasonable story along the lines "I've heard this rumor can you readers help me find out if there is any substance to it ..", but that's not what you wrote, rather you just know it's an outrage because that's what your religion demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about those sites that show sex offenders' faces and addresses? Can the offenders sue them too?
I stand by my comment last week that people who waste the court's time with crap suits should have to pay the government's costs for processing said crap.
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just please don't mention the fact that I delete comments willy-nilly just because they don't measure up to my standards. I really do believe in free speech, I just believe that I should be the one to decide what speech is worth hearing. After all, it's my site and I can do what I want!!!!!
So drop by my site and donate to my cause!!!!! Just don't,criticize anything I say or I'll delete your post.
Free Speech Forever!!!!!
www.Pee2PeeNet.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding "freedom of speech"
Let's say you attend a talk on a university campus. The talk is open to the public. During the Q&A session after the talk an anonymous guest jumps up and announces that his new car repair business is offering discounts on certain services. That person is quickly asked to leave by the organiser of the talk. Has his "free speech" been affected?
Someone else stands up and starts questioning the speaker in a manner that is mocking, rude and disrespectful. Her manner (as opposed to her points) makes other guests feel uncomfortable and her behaviour spoils the atmosphere of the debate. She is also asked to leave. All of the points she was attempting to make could have been made in a respectful, reasonable manner and if she had chosen to make them in that way, she would (in most institutions I'm sure), have been allowed to state her case, however awkward or challenging it may have been for the speaker.
In my experience, when people (especially guests who, for whatever reason, decline to identify themselves) demand to be heard on sites that they don't run, more often than not it's their rude, overbearing behaviour that gets them banned, and not what they are trying to say.
Besides, free speech is something guaranteed constitutionally or by statute. Nothing Mike does here can affect whatever rights you have to it. Perhaps you are confusing freedom of speech with the right to reply, or possibly even, with the right to troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding "freedom of speech"
They don't even have to be rude for me to delete them. You see, I'm an expert on what's worth reading and what isn't, so if I don't like a comment, obviously it's not worth reading and I delete it. Sure, I could leave them and let the other users defend their own viewpoints, but since anyone with any brains would naturally side with me, why should I trouble all the good users with having to read what is obviously worthless drivel? I'm doing them all a favor by deleting all these worthless messages before anyone has a chance to see them. I also make sure to delete any responses to them. After all, I can't have them thinking that others agree with them.
Just look at how messy this site is!!!!! People call Mike names and tell him that he's wrong all the time!!!!! I'd never stand for that. They should give me administrator access here so that I could get rid of all these worthless comments. It would be so much nicer if all you had to read were comments from sensible posters who agree with the articles.
www.Pee2PeeNet.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wayne Crookes’ lawsuits disconcerting and perhaps even frivolous, but are they a necessary exercise in the establishment of Internet accountability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wayne Crookes’ lawsuits disconcerting and perhaps even frivolous, but are they a necessary exercise in the establishment of Internet accountability?
I stopped reading there; I can get second hand Masnicki opinions here without trawling through so much verbiage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You proved my point Anonymous Coward . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You proved my point Anonymous Coward . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it depends on the intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro Bono Assistance for Online Journalism Ventures
The OMLN is an initiative of the Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP), an affiliate of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, provides assistance, education and resources for individuals and organizations involved in online and digital media. Thes Legal Guide, available at www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide, is a comprehensive resource that allows users to learn about topics such as:
• Forming a Business and Getting Online
• Dealing with Online Legal Risk
• Newsgathering and Privacy
• Access to Government Information
• Intellectual Property
• Risks Associated with Publication
[ link to this | view in chronology ]