Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (11519)	10/21/2011 9:32:57 AM
From: scion	Respond to of 12465

Internet links not libel, top court rules By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2011 9:53 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 19, 2011 11:47 AM ET cbc.ca Hyperlinking to defamatory material on the internet does not constitute publishing the defamatory material itself, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday. The ruling will alleviate fears that holding someone liable for how they use hyperlinks on websites, personal ones or others, could cast a chill on internet use. The responsible use of the internet and how traditional defamation law applies to modern technologies were at issue in this case, which was watched closely by media organizations and civil liberties groups. How someone can protect their reputation in the internet age when content is passed around with the quick click of a button was also considered in the case. On social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, users often share links, and the court's ruling could have dramatically disrupted that function had it gone the other way. In its unanimous decision, the court said a hyperlink, by itself, should never be considered "publication" of the content to which it refers. But that doesn't mean internet users shouldn't be careful about how they present links. The court says that if someone presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that repeats the defamatory content, they can be considered publishers and are therefore at risk of being sued for defamation. The court agreed with the arguments that applying the definition of publisher to someone who hyperlinks could have a chilling effect on internet use. "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," Madam Justice Rosalie Abella wrote. "The potential 'chill' in how the internet functions could be devastating, since primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to another article over whose changeable content they have no control," the ruling said. The court said hyperlinks are like footnootes in that they communicate that something exists but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. The person who wrote the secondary article may have no idea they were referenced, and, the person who wrote the primary article may have no idea if the material they linked to is changed at a later time. The majority of judges agreed that although someone can facilitate the transfer of information by what he or she links to, an internet user who follows the link is leaving one source and moving to another. The creator of the words in the secondary article is the one publishing defamatory material, not the first author. B.C. dispute triggered case The case was brought to the country's top court by British Columbia resident Wayne Crookes, a former Green Party campaign manager, and his company, West Coast Title Search Ltd. Crookes was seeking damages from Jon Newton over links contained in an article that Newton wrote and posted on his own website in 2006. Crookes said the article linked to another website that he said contained articles about him that were defamatory. Newton was asked to remove the links and he refused, prompting legal action by Crookes. Newton's website did not reproduce any of the disputed material, nor make any comment about it. Crookes's lawyer, Donald Jordan, argued that by creating the links, Newton was himself a publisher of the allegedly libellous material and that hyperlinks are part of the content of the primary article. By linking to a website, one is inviting and facilitating the reader to go to that website, it was argued. Jordan said internet users should be responsible enough to review material and make a judgment before linking to it. Newton's lawyers acknowledged in their defence that there may be circumstances when an internet author explicitly endorses an article they link to and in that case might be liable. But Newton's is not that kind of case, they said, and the court agreed Wednesday. They argued that if a person can be found to have defamed another just by including a hyperlink to a defamatory website, freedom of expression is at risk. Protecting reputation on the internet While the Supreme Court ruling can be viewed as supportive of freedom of expression on the internet, the justices also say that freedom doesn't give people a licence to ruin reputations. The internet has the capacity to endlessly replicate defamatory material and websites such as Facebook and Twitter mean everyone who uses them could potentially be considered a publisher. Abella writes in the ruling, however, that allowing the publication rule to apply to hyperlinks would not ultimately protect reputation. "If a plaintiff wishes to prevent further publications of the defamatory content, his or her most effective remedy lies with the person who actually created and controls the content," the judgment reads. Document cbc.ca

To: SI Dave who wrote (11519)	10/21/2011 10:01:48 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 10/21/11 - [OSTK] Gary Weiss' Blog: Patrick Byrne Fails to Celebrate Deep Capture Libel Suit Patrick Byrne Fails to Celebrate Deep Capture Libel Suit Byrne: About to learn a lesson in Canadian libel law. For years I've been following the exploits of the publicity-hungry CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, famous for blaming his company's failing fortunes on a "Sith Lord," and for setting up an astroturf website, called Deep Capture, to libel and harass his critics, myself included. Given Byrne's propensity for self-promotion--with this far-right Milton Friedman fan toting a camera crew to Liberty Plaza to glom on to the Occupy Wall Street movement--I was surprised that he failed to issue a gloating press release to celebrate a libel suit that has been brought against Byrne, Deep Capture and Mark Mitchell, the disgraced former Columbia Journalism Review editor who now works for Byrne. The suit, brought in Vancouver, Canada, was filed by one of the dozens of victims of Byrne's libel machine, a stock promoter by the name of Altaf Nazerali who was the subject of lurid accusations by Byrne minions on the Deep Capture web. Byrne, who once "celebrated" one of his many SEC subpoenas, has been uncharacteristically silent, though a hysterical post on the Deep Capture site a few weeks back indicated that he had been contacted about the impending suit. Whether his lawyers will continue to keep his trap shut is anyone's guess. According to an item that appeared today on Canada's Stockwatch, "Nazerali claims that the site portrays him as a criminal and a fraud artist, among other things. The site linked him with an Osama bin Laden associate and with members of the Mafia." Among the defendants, according to Stockwatch, are Mitchell, Byrne, Deep Capture LLC -- the corporate shell Byrne created to house his astroturf site -- and High Plains Investments LLC. Since High Plains, a hedge fund wholly owned by Byrne, is considered a related company to Overstock.com, this raises the question of whether Byrne is obliged to disclose it in the company's filings. Whatever. I only know this much: Canada's libel laws are similar to Britain's, in that they are heavily pro-plaintiff. Byrne had apparently gotten used to libeling low-income journalists in the U.S. He stepped out of his league when he went after a well-heeled business exec in Canada who lacks most journalists' qualms (and lack of resources) when it comes to filing libel suits. That's the problem with bullies, I guess. Sometimes they pick on the wrong victim. I hope, for his sake, that Byrne's trust fund is alive and well, and that big daddy's money is continuing to flow into his account. Defending libel suits is a costly proposition, easily running into the millions, and I have a funny feeling Byrne hasn't got libel insurance. I also believe (though don't hold me to it) that under Canadian libel law, the loser has to pay the winner's legal fees. Stay tuned. © 2011 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved. garyweiss.blogspot.com