cearta.ie

Crookes v Newton 2011 SCC 47 (CanLII) (19 October 2011)

From the headnote (emphasis added):

To prove the publication element of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has, by any act, conveyed defamatory meaning to a single third party who has received it. Traditionally, the form the defendant’s act takes and the manner in which it assists in causing the defamatory content to reach the third party are irrelevant. Applying this traditional rule to hyperlinks, however, would have the effect of creating a presumption of liability for all hyperlinkers. This would seriously restrict the flow of information on the Internet and, as a result, freedom of expression.

Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of “publication”. Hyperlinks and references both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. They both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral. Furthermore, inserting a hyperlink into a text gives the author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.

In the Irish Times today, Tom Hickey (NUI Galway) provides a useful reminder of what the notion of the common good actually means:

Opportunity to reclaim the idea of ‘republic’

… Citizens of an authentic republic are committed to the fact that they share a social and political community with other citizens. They appreciate that their own individual good, and the good of their families and local communities, is intimately connected with the common good of the republic.

Moreover, this common good is not a crude aggregation of competing private goods. It requires meaningful deliberative engagement on the part of all citizens, and participation. But this participation must be based on public-spiritedness, not on ambitions for the advancement of private interests. …

The phrase “the common good” is used several times in Bunreacht na hEireann, as a ground for limiting rights. In that context, in the hands of litigants and judges, it is often treated as simply a synonym either for a utilitarian preference for the greatest good of the greatest number or for the interests of the State. Tom’s summary demonstrates that neither view is correct.

… at the launch of Index’s on Censorship magazine’s “Art Issue” on Wednesday at the Free Word Centre … [a]rtists Langlands & Bell gave a firsthand account of what it was like to have their work censored by the Tate despite their willingness to alter parts of the work to ensure the gallery was not in contempt of court. Ben Langlands spoke of the frustration they felt at not being able to show their work in its entirety – and with Tate for not being transparent about the reasons behind the removal of their film  ”Zardad’s Dog”, part of their Turner-nominated The House of Osama Bin Laden.

It is a fact not in need of repetition that we all die. But our online lives, through lack of individual management and frequent lack of online service providers (OSPs) guidance, do not fully reflect this fundamental certainty. Admittedly in the social networking world there is greater awareness, with online reminders of the fragility of life through memorialised Facebook profiles. This practice, in stark contrast to the conventional slab of engraved granite, provides an easily accessible and virtual memorial to the deceased user. It is also a practical response which stops the issues caused by friends of a deceased Facebook user being urged to get in touch and reconnect with a dead friend, causing clear emotional upset (see report here). But, overall many OSPs don’t have sufficient provisions in place for managing a user’s digital assets upon death. Coupled with lack of user awareness this creates a problem which will grow in significance as online service users get older. 

Universities such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge regularly dominate the global university rankings, while retaining a high regard for academic freedom. Oxford’s strategic plan, for example, states that: “The most fundamental value, underpinning all of our scholarly activity, is academic freedom, defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead.