Free speech isn't a global constant. In Canada, defamation laws follow closely English law. In other words, much of the burden of proof falls on the defendant. There's no "actual malice" burden that a complainant must meet, and there's no Section 230 law that prevents publishers from being held responsible for potentially defamatory material posted by a third party. That lack of freedom put Canadian publication p2pnet at legal odds with a Vancouver businessman who took issue with hyperlinks posted by p2pnet.

What happened next set a groundbreaking change in defamation law in Canada. The court confronted the issue of whether merely linking to potentially defamatory material also held the publisher (p2pnet in this case) liable. The court ruled in favor of the defense.

"Following a landmark decision by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher, p2pnet is the victor in a case in which Vancouver businessmen Wayne Crookes, once an important federal Green Party of Canada official, tried to claim I defamed him by linking to articles he didn’t like."

At the time, publisher Jon Newton anticipated this was only round one, and it appears this feeling was correct. Today, p2pnet is publishing that Crookes has been granted permission to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court. Free speech in Canada is still up for grabs.

But p2pnet isn’t fighting this alone. CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) is expected to intervene as a friend of the court, adding a much welcomed punch in the fight to win more favorable laws defending free speech in Canada.

This story is filed in these Slyck News categories

You can discuss this article here