Sighs of relief after a decision in a defamation case (Crooks v. Newton) reported on earlier. [Michael Geist] Justice Abella:
I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers.
Adventurous litigants in U.S. defamation cases have occasionally argued otherwise. On Canada, see also proposals to criminalize links to so-called hate speech.
Barrick Gold and Banro Corporation have sued three authors of a book that alleged human rights violations in African mining operations; Barrick has also threatened suit against a Vancouver-based publisher over a not-yet-published book. [BoingBoing, Canadian Business, Quill and Quire; FreeSpeechAtRisk.ca]
Ontario is being urged to tackle the problem. “The thing about SLAPPs is they are very effective. They are so effective that you never hear about them, because, the whole thing about them is, they are trying to shut people up,” said an environmentalist who favors broader protection for speech. [The Globe and Mail]
“I was hoping for a fruit basket, not a threat to prosecute,” says controversialist Ann Coulter about the menacing letter she got from the provost of the University of Ottawa. [Big Government, Popehat, Legal Blog Watch, WSJ Law Blog] Part of Coulter’s Canadian tour was subsequently called off after security officials said they could not guarantee her safety from protesters. [Moynihan/Reason “Hit and Run”] More: Mark Steyn, Binks. The somewhat attenuated nature of Canada’s rights of free speech is a topic familiar to our readers.
A human rights tribunal has found Canada’s hate-speech law, or at least some applications of it, to be an unconstitutional infringement of free expression. [National Post] Mark Steyn hopes this portends an end to a dark chapter in the nation’s history, but the Western Standard’s Shotgun Blog cautions that the ruling is narrower than one might assume. More: Blazing Cat Fur.
The high-profile Canadian free speech advocate (and target himself of the atrocious attentions of Canada’s speech tribunals) has this to say:
Overlawyered.com is a great U.S. website about the American affliction of too many lawsuits. Canada has a simple rule that America lacks, that has made us far less litigious: in Canadian civil courts, the loser has to pay a portion of the winner’s legal fees. That means nuisance suits are far less common.
Which is why human rights commissions are so bad — they remove that damper on frivolous suits, inviting the worst bullies and harassers to abuse the system….
Background: