If a similar case came before the current US Supreme Court, how many here think that a similarly wise and well reasoned ruling would result?
Reshared post from +Bob Goyetche
"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.."
Nice ! I know a few people this is too late to help, but it's nice to see it there now..
Embedded Link
Internet links not libel, top court rules – Politics – CBC News
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that hyperlinking to defamatory material on the internet is not the same as publishing the material itself.
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
I agree that just the linking of the site should not make someone accountable. However, if the surrounding tone or wording is relying on the link in an attempt to spread misinformation that must be taken into account.
I agree that just the linking of the site should not make someone accountable. However, if the surrounding tone or wording is relying on the link in an attempt to spread misinformation that must be taken into account.
Certainly these things are never black and white. If some publishes a post that endorses (and links to) something defamatory or libelous, then they are explicitly committing the same offense. However, a simple link without comment or even with a negative comment cannot and should not be perceived that way.
Certainly these things are never black and white. If some publishes a post that endorses (and links to) something defamatory or libelous, then they are explicitly committing the same offense. However, a simple link without comment or even with a negative comment cannot and should not be perceived that way.