The question of what responsibility should lie with Internet platforms for the content they host that is posted by their users has been the subject of debate around in the world as politicians, regulators, and the broader public seek to navigate policy choices to combat harmful speech that have implications for freedom of expression, online harms, competition, and innovation. To help sort through the policy options, Daphne Keller, the Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, joins the podcast this week. She recently posted an excellent article on the Balkinization blog that provided a helpful guide to intermediary liability law making and agreed to chat about how policy makers can adjust the dials on new rules to best reflect national goals.
Post Tagged with: "defamation"
Supreme Court Stands Up for the Internet
Appeared in the Toronto Star on October 23, 2011 as Supreme Court Stands Up for the Internet The Supreme Court of Canada last week issued its much anticipated ruling on the potential liability for linking to allegedly defamatory content on the Internet. The court provided a huge win for the […]
Supreme Court of Canada Stands Up for the Internet: No Liability for Linking
I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication†of the content to which it refers.
This is an enormous win for the Internet since it rightly recognizes that links are just digital references that should not be viewed as republication of the underlying content. As Abella states:
Hyperlinks are, in essence, references. By clicking on the link, readers are directed to other sources. Hyperlinks may be inserted with or without the knowledge of the operator of the site containing the secondary article. Because the content of the secondary article is often produced by someone other than the person who inserted the hyperlink in the primary article, the content on the other end of the link can be changed at any time by whoever controls the secondary page. Although the primary author controls whether there is a hyperlink and what article that word or phrase is linked to, inserting a hyperlink gives the primary author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.
Conrad Black Case Targets Net Defamation Jurisdiction Standard
When Black sued the company’s directors, advisers, and one company employee for defamation, the defendants in the case brought a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Ontario was not the appropriate venue for the case since both Hollinger and Black are located in the U.S. After a judge dismissed the motion, the defendants appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In a unanimous decision this month, the appellate court upheld the ruling by the motions judge, concluding that Ontario was a suitable venue and that the defamation case could proceed.
Conrad Black Case Targets Net Defamation Jurisdiction Standards
Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 30, 2010 as Conrad Black Case Targets Net Defamation Standards Conrad Black’s ongoing legal fight in the United States has attracted considerable attention in Canada, yet there is a side courtroom battle at home over alleged defamatory content on the Internet that merits […]
