2 ms·

In the article it says Google stopped removing the links because of a CA Supreme Court case on an "unrelated matter". It's not unrelated. It's Crookes v Newton

In the article it says Google stopped removing the links because of a CA Supreme Court case on an "unrelated matter". It's not unrelated. It's Crookes v Newton and it said hyperlinks aren't defamatory: https://bc-injury-law.com/supreme-court-canada-clarifies-hyperlinks-defamatory/ https://bc-injury-law.com/supreme-court-canada-clarifies-hyp... I'll save you some time: Defamation in Canada requires: "(1) that the impugned words were defamatory, (2) that the words referred to the plaintiff and (3) that they were published." And the court said linking is not publishing. So Google stopped removing the links at his request.

makeitdouble 4y ago
FTA > He also asked Google to remove links to the website, as well as a short extract from the site, on the search engine’s results page. Emphasis mine. I'd argue laws and rulings can be contradictory in the first place, that's one reason there's judges. But here it's simpler than that: it's not just about linking, and the defamatory part was probably visible without having to follow the link.