A Canadian court has ruled that linking to a defamatory page is not in itself an act of defamation.

The case has been greeted by some as a landmark ruling. It centred on a defamation lawsuit launched by a former Green Party official Wayne Crookes against p2pnet and several other websites. Crookes alleged that these sites were guilty of defamation because they carried links to articles he said were defamatory.

However B.C. Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher decided that linking by itself is not sufficient to make a case for defamation. In his ruling (PDF), he likened linking to a footnote:

A hyperlink is like a footnote or a reference to a website in printed material such as a newsletter. The purpose of a hyperlink is to direct the reader to additional material from a different source. The only difference is the ease with which a hyperlink allows the reader, with a simple click of the mouse, to instantly access the additional material.

Judge Kelleher went on to say that:

Without proof that persons other than the plaintiff visited the defendant’s website, clicked on the hyperlinks, and read the articles complained of, there cannot be a finding of publication.

However, the ruling did come with a caveat. Judge Kelleher made it clear that:

My decision that hyperlinking can never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site. For example, if Mr. Newton had written “the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here” and “here” is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.

As some blogs have pointed out, linking to a potentially defamatory site may still land you in trouble. This ruling will add to the debate over the legality of linking, which has been a thorny issue in Canada and beyond.