Internet Activists are applauding the Supreme Court's decision in Crookes v. Newton (a.k.a "The Hyperlink Ruling"). Professor Michael Geist thinks Justice Abella is "exactly right" while lawyer Howard Knopf claims "the court was fully aware of what was at stake". I beg to differ. If anything the ruling demonstrates just how impotent our Justice system is to take the reins on issues of free speech and the Internet.
Around the world journalists are being censored and imprisoned. The forces that seek to silence truth follow the internet's hyperlinks to their targets. A hyperlink is much more than what the ruling defines: it's more than a citation, more than republication and more than an argument over content ownership. A hyperlink demonstrates what a citizen has read, what they know: this is the freedom attribute that is at stake. Thus it is patently unhelpful that Justice Abella has ruled that a hyperlink is 'only' a citation, 'not' republication and 'not' litigable. Relativism and dualism canceled the efficacy of legal discourse in this instance. This ruling should have pointed to the need for legislating the meta data of hyperlinks: who tracks their click-throughs, who uses those stats against us, etc. I also expected some mention in the ruling of the dynamics of persecution that attend an individual's entree into publication in this age. There is none.
Sadly our country's highest bench doesn't seem to have the savvy required to bring defamation case law in line with the new realities of publishing. It's not like our highest Court hasn't heard from the best legal minds in this regard. The SCC has heard it all. I can only surmise that their deficits in understanding relate fundamentally to how they work. Perhaps the court should bear in mind that any person hyperlinking to a Supreme Court ruling that disfavors a government position is a person at risk. I would ask Justice Abella if this is a hyperlink protected by law:
Yet I wouldn't put much faith in her answer...
UPDATE:
As at December 1st, 2011 countless law firms and lawyers have written at length about this ruling. Good places to go from here are Sonia Dawan's Potential Liability for For Hyperlinking: Crookes v. Newton and Maanit Zemel's Will the SCC's Online Defamation Decisions go 'viral'?. Both are confused speculations. For my part I'm still sure this ruling will have harmful consequences for online freedom. My view will attain merit in the future..I'm sure..
Around the world journalists are being censored and imprisoned. The forces that seek to silence truth follow the internet's hyperlinks to their targets. A hyperlink is much more than what the ruling defines: it's more than a citation, more than republication and more than an argument over content ownership. A hyperlink demonstrates what a citizen has read, what they know: this is the freedom attribute that is at stake. Thus it is patently unhelpful that Justice Abella has ruled that a hyperlink is 'only' a citation, 'not' republication and 'not' litigable. Relativism and dualism canceled the efficacy of legal discourse in this instance. This ruling should have pointed to the need for legislating the meta data of hyperlinks: who tracks their click-throughs, who uses those stats against us, etc. I also expected some mention in the ruling of the dynamics of persecution that attend an individual's entree into publication in this age. There is none.
Sadly our country's highest bench doesn't seem to have the savvy required to bring defamation case law in line with the new realities of publishing. It's not like our highest Court hasn't heard from the best legal minds in this regard. The SCC has heard it all. I can only surmise that their deficits in understanding relate fundamentally to how they work. Perhaps the court should bear in mind that any person hyperlinking to a Supreme Court ruling that disfavors a government position is a person at risk. I would ask Justice Abella if this is a hyperlink protected by law:
B E T W E E N
GUY WILLIAM GIORNO
Plaintiff
-AND-.
Defendant
KAREN MARY KRISFALUSI
Yet I wouldn't put much faith in her answer...
UPDATE:
As at December 1st, 2011 countless law firms and lawyers have written at length about this ruling. Good places to go from here are Sonia Dawan's Potential Liability for For Hyperlinking: Crookes v. Newton and Maanit Zemel's Will the SCC's Online Defamation Decisions go 'viral'?. Both are confused speculations. For my part I'm still sure this ruling will have harmful consequences for online freedom. My view will attain merit in the future..I'm sure..
No comments:
Post a Comment