Defamatory content on the internet?? Throw a metaphorical rock
into the ether and you'll hit something that meets the
definition of defamatory content. In order to establish a claim for
defamation, a plaintiff must establish that:
(a) the words are defamatory, in the sense that they would tend
to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a
(b) the words refer to the plaintiff; and
(c) the words were published, in the sense that they were
communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
In Canada, this is the same basic test whether the medium is an
old-school print newspaper, a neighbourhood newsletter, a personal
blog, or an online comments section. While defamation can be
difficult to establish, the law appears to have settled on a few
rules around linking to allegedly defamatory content. Two
recent U.S. cases addressed this issue, and U.S. commentators have
even pointed back for guidance to a watershed Canadian case from
2011 (which we wrote about here).
In Life Designs Ranch Inc. v.
Sommer the court reaffirmed that linking to
defamatory content does not, by itself, constitute a publication of
that content: "...a URL is not qualitatively different from a
mere reference. Therefore, we hold Mr. Sommer did not republish
allegedly defamatory material when he posted on his website:
'For more info click or cut and paste the link ....'
Going one step further, what if the link is more than just a
link? The court in Slozer and Donches v
Slattery reviewed a situation where the
defamatory content was linked in a post, and then that post was
"Liked" on Facebook by the defendant. The court said:
"...by providing a link to the challenged posting, without
reiterating the content of that posting did not initiate a
republication. Her motivations and her designation of the link with
a "like" as alleged by Appellants, is not equivalent to a
reiteration of the defamatory content as to constitute
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).