Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Supreme Court of Canada refrains from breaking the internet

fredr123 · 10-19-2011, 12:22 PM

[30] Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral — it expresses no opinion, nor does it have any control over, the content to which it refers.

You know how some blogs use the title of the post in the url? If you post a link like http://yourmomsawhore.tumblr.com/fotzes-mom-is-a-whore.html I think the SCC leaves open the door for a successful defamation action in that instance. Of course, truth is always an available defence so perhaps this is a poor example.

I think the SCC left open the door for other kinds of links too. For instance, those annoying links that automatically display the page when you hover over them.

10-19-2011, 12:22 PM	#5
fredr123 Franchise Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Exp:	[30] Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral — it expresses no opinion, nor does it have any control over, the content to which it refers. You know how some blogs use the title of the post in the url? If you post a link like http://yourmomsawhore.tumblr.com/fotzes-mom-is-a-whore.html I think the SCC leaves open the door for a successful defamation action in that instance. Of course, truth is always an available defence so perhaps this is a poor example. I think the SCC left open the door for other kinds of links too. For instance, those annoying links that automatically display the page when you hover over them.