08.21.2013 12:22 PM

Internet law, the basics: hyperlinks

For anyone getting harassed by a lunatic threatening to sue them for linking to another web site, note this:

“…the majority held that a plaintiff concerned about mere hyperlinks should sue the publishers of the original articles, who made the material available to the public in the first place.

Hyperlinks are simply references to other content. Think of them as fast footnotes. The reader has to do something to get to the content: by going to the library in an earlier era; or, more easily now, by clicking on a link.

In essence they are content neutral. They don’t express opinion, nor control the site to which they refer. In fact, the content can and often does change after the link is created.”

13 Comments

  1. Greg says:

    You can’t post anything on the net and not expect people to read or refer to it. Isn’t that why you’re writing in the public domain?
    If you want your work protected from the outside world, then don’t write online. Be a hermit and keep your shit to yourself like JD Salinger.

  2. bigcitylib says:

    Yeah, and I’ve always thought that the Supreme Court screwed that ruling up. All the lower courts had said a mere link COULD count as defamation where context suggested that the intent was to defame. This ruling gave a blanket exemption. Which may not apply to whatever you are talking about.

    • It does sound odd. Not being a lawyer, I cannot judge the arguments, but I would think that creating a link is happening within a context, and the context ought to determine whether the link was a deliberate defamation, or libel. Sure, content at spot linked to could be changed, but then again it may not change. If I link to a racists rant, and preface my link with the words: ‘These guys have the right idea’, then am I not subscribing to their rant also? I am sure it must be more nuanced than simply saying ‘html links are content neutral’ because often they are not

  3. Auric Goldfinger says:

    Warren is smarter, richer and better looking than me.

  4. Auric Goldfinger says:

    Press Gallery membership.

  5. deb s says:

    thanks for posting this, I had no idea and a few of us had this legal situation crop up last year. Our local paper was threatened with a lawsuit by an @ssh0l3 and I had linked the story that caused the lawsuit on a discussion group and I had been warned to pull it down. Im glad I can safely post stories without repercussions.

    • davidray says:

      I post hither and thither on the net. The trolls arrive soon after and that’s how I know I’ve hit a nerve. I then give them a short shot of Kinsella like “You’re an idiot now fuck off.” I seldom ever hear back. Funny thing that. It also helps that I have no money 🙂

  6. Auric Goldfinger says:

    Good luck with that, Warren. Political book deal on Harper with a major publisher, Blacklocks, regular political column, freelance work including Hill Times Top 100. Liz’s wet dream.

    Mark Bourrie

  7. e.a.f. says:

    So they want to sue. For many, who cares. it is not like we have anything to be taken from us. First the idiots who want to sue, they have to go to court. This cost varies from province to province. In Alberta its about $800? In B.C. about $40K??
    Then there is the cost of the lawyers.

    In some parts of Canada many are making min. wage or close to it. Don’t own cars, don’t own homes. What do they expect to get? You can’t get blood from a stone.

    It is nice to be provided with the information in this article. However, for many a lawsuit wouldn’t matter. There is nothing to gain. People who like to sue need to realize there are many who have nothing to loose.

Leave a Reply to Auric Goldfinger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.