🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear All,

The conversation on linking has been interesting. I know nothing of US law,
so my comments below should be seen as referring to UK law.

Brian Pomeroy wrote recently:-

"...linking is a way to further this purpose (information).  Webmasters
who object to having others link to their sites should re-evaluate whether
they want to make their information public to begin with (as the US
military did recently)"

I agree with Eve Valdivia who said in her posting "this was a great point".

Kathy wrote "It's always a courtesy to tell someone you are linking to
their site"

I agree in principle.

However, I sometimes have the heretical thought that having a webpage or
site is the ultimate in vanity publishing and a good method of satisfying
one's attention-seeking urges - whether this is a personal problem or an
apparently socially acceptable commercial or academic activity. So I
totally fail to understand why anyone should object to having links created
to one's site.

Linking does raise several interesting ethical questions and thoughts
though - in the areas of criminal law and tort - it would be interesting to
know whether, in the legal arena, supplying links to child pornography
sites, offensive religious material, or libellous material (for
example)constitute offence in law. How does one prove mens rea. Could my
site be regarded as an accessory before or after the fact and prosecutable
in the same way that the original site may be prosecuted? I may provide a
link to a site which was originally merely quirky, but then is updated to
include extremely offensive and illegal material. How would the linking
site be judged in that situation? Kathy also made a point relating to
adverts carried on the linked site. If these adverts are potentially
problematic [non-ecofriendly, potentially unethical etc etc] this could
also raise moral questions as well.

Asking permission and getting no response may also be a problem. In UK
contract law, as I understand it, including a phrase such as "if I get no
reply I will take this as agreement to the link" is not a contract.

This also raises one further metaphysical thought.(!)

Arrangements may be being planned, I understand, for web sites to continue
after the owners death.[one or two sites already exist] Are we going to be
pestered from beyond the grave by people objecting to links to their
(hopefully) eternal sites? Maybe we should just "Link and be damned" one
way or another!

Jen Cairns
Postgraduate Student
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Wales, Lampeter
Ceredigion, UK  SA48 7ED