Developments in Internet law: defamation and hyperlinks | Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has advanced both defamation law and Internet law in its recent decision in Crookes v Newton,1 released on October 19, 2011. The court, by a majority of six judges, held that a person cannot defame someone merely by publishing a hyperlink to a third party's website or document containing defamatory material: “… a hyperlink by itself, should never be seen as a ‘publication’ of the content to which it refers.”2 “Making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content.”3 The majority compares hyperlinks to footnoted references in a paper document. Even though hyperlinks, unlike footnotes, offer immediate access to the third-party sites to which they refer, readers know that in following the link they are being referred to a different source. The majority expressly refrains from deciding whether the conclusion should be different in the case of embedded or automatic hyperlinks.
What is Internet Defamation? (Video and Podcast) Thesis fulltext. What you say on social media is not just social - NZ Law Society. Social media is not just social. It can be used for and against your business. What you say on social media about a competitor can have wide reaching effects, as Leah Madden found out. In September 2010, Ms Madden made comments and posted photos on her personal Facebook page about the swimwear business Seafolly. Ms Madden was also in the swimwear business and thought that Seafolly had copied her designs. She also contacted various media outlets about the alleged copying. Ms Madden posted the following images (as well as others) on Facebook: In response to Ms Madden’s Facebook activity and media approaches, Seafolly issued press releases denying copying and saying that Ms Madden’s comments had been made maliciously.
The claims and counter-claims Seafolly sued Ms Madden, claiming she had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when she posted the images on Facebook and contacted the media. Ms Madden counterclaimed for defamation. Personal Facebook page in trade or commerce? End result. ISP 'publishers' at risk over dodgy content. By PETER GRIFFIN The country's first web defamation case has again raised the issue of whether internet service providers (ISPs) are legally responsible for the material they host on their web servers.
A decision handed down in the Palmerston North District Court on Friday awarded Patrick O'Brien, the former chief executive of internet registry Domainz, $42,000 in the country's first case of web defamation. Mr O'Brien successfully sued ISP operator Alan Brown for making defamatory statements about him on an internet newsgroup, e-mail list and website. Although Mr Brown hosted the defamatory information through his own ISP Manawatu Internet Services, legal experts say an independent ISP hosting his comments could also have been successfully sued. But Auckland barrister Chris Patterson, of Eldon Chambers, said ISPs were "dreaming" if they thought they were safe from court action for hosting defamatory material, whether they did so knowingly or not. Continued below. Cartoon: The other campaign. Defamation | Media Law Journal. These notes were prepared in June 2009.
They are intended as general information not specific legal advice. If you want legal advice about a particular problem, you can contact me here. What is defamation? The publication of a statement about someone that lowers him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, where no defence (usually truth, opinion, or qualified privilege) is available. The defences are dealt with below. In English? A rough rule of thumb: something you wouldn’t want said about you What are some examples? Calling someone dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, lazy, incompetent, criminal, unfaithful, or financially troubled. For example, imagine I wrote that you often visited brothels. Sometimes journalists and others try to get clever with words, hinting and implying things, thinking they are safe because they can prove the literal truth of the words. But what if the publisher didn’t intend that meaning?
It doesn’t matter. Not necessarily. Yes. Yes. Guide to Defamation Law | Defamation Update. Statements are not always clearly marked by evaluative adjectives (“terrible teacher”; “evil gardener”). In these circumstances, it is, once again, the context of the statement that points towards whether the statement is one of opinion or fact: Surrounding words: The Honest Opinion 101 lesson is to precede all statements with disclaimers such as “in my opinion”, “I believe”, “I think”, “I consider”, “it seems”, “it appears” or the like.
And, indeed, with respect to most statements, this will strongly suggest to readers that the statement is only the author’s opinion (i.e. it is not to be treated definitively). But BEWARE: If you think you are off the hook by simply preceding any given statement with “in my opinion”, then you are sadly mistaken. Such a disclaimer does not necessarily make the statement an expression of opinion in the eyes of readers. Surrounding sentences: Some people think that if you make an assertion, it must be a statement of fact. KaramvParkerandAnor2014NZHC737. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary | Chris Lance Cairns -v- Lalit Modi. Defamation Act 1992 No 105 (as at 08 August 2014), Public Act Contents.