´óÏó´«Ã½

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material.

The decision effectively shields anyone who publishes a link, as long as the linking itself is not defamatory.

The case concerned a Vancouver businessman and political volunteer who claimed a site defamed him by linking to an libellous article.

The article with the links in question was entitled "Free Speech in Canada".

"The internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks," Justice Rosalie Abella .

"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."

The Supreme Court decision upheld the rulings of two lower Canadian courts, including .

Mr Crookes, the businessman, asked website owner Jon Newton to remove the links. Mr Newton refused.

The website did not reproduce any of the disputed material, nor make any comment about it, a crucial distinction of the case.

Free speech advocates and media policy researchers hailed the ruling.

"The court recognises that simply posting a link to material that may be libellous is a far cry from publishing or repeating the libel, let alone endorsing what has been said in the linked post," Dean Jobb, a journalism professor at University of King's College .

In the United States, publishers who link, and have comments and other forms of third-party material posted on their websites by a section of a 1996 law.

While several state courts have ruled on similar issues, the US Supreme Court has never taken an official stance on Section 230, as it is called.