Canada's Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that posting online links to a website containing libellous material is not libel in itself.

The top court upheld the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday against former Green Party campaign manager Wayne Crooks, who had argued that there was no difference between publishing defamatory statements and publishing links to the sites where the statements were written.

P2Pnet.net, a technology and freedom of speech news website hosted by British Columbia resident Jon Newton, never published any of the claims that Crooks took issue with. It did not even comment on them.

Wednesday's ruling outlined the difference between linking to a website and actively encouraging readers to view the material.

"Making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content," the court wrote in its decision. "Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be 'published' by the hyperlinker."

The court's judgment placed the blame for a libellous statement on the site where it is published, ensuring web users who post links are not obligated to verify all content on the site they are linking to.

"Such an approach promotes expression and respects the realities of the Internet, while creating little or no limitations to a plaintiff's ability to vindicate his or her reputation," stated the judgment.

Before arriving at the Supreme Court, B.C.'s Justice Stephen Kelleher had dismissed the case, describing links as something like footnotes.

The suit against Newton and P2Pnet wasn't the only such case brought forth by the plaintiff. He had also launched libel proceedings against Yahoo, members of the Green Party of Canada, Google, Myspace and Wikipedia.

Toronto blogger Chris Tindal says he was also sued by the plaintiff. On his Twitter account on Wednesday, Tindal noted that despite losing at the Supreme Court, Crooks still managed to put a chill on free speech.

"In Canada, there's nothing to stop someone with (money) from suing someone with less into bankruptcy even if their case is complete fiction," wrote Tindal, who ran unsuccessfully for a city council seat in downtown Toronto last year.

"At least I hope I can now stop spending thousands of my own (money helping) to defend the whole Internet from this guy," he wrote in an earlier post. "You're welcome."

Intellectual property professor Michael Geist, who once posted on his blog that he had also been sued by Crooks, lauded the Supreme Court's decision.

"The ruling is a huge win for the Internet," said Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law.

"The Supreme Court of Canada clearly understood the technology, I think they understand the Internet. They, most importantly in this case, understand the direct link -- no pun intended -- between hyperlinks on the Internet and freedom of expression and the ability to disseminate information."