[radarsat1]

> Extending such a constitutional privilege does not mean permitting linking when it clearly intends to facilitate illegal behavior.

In what way would this not just be a return to the status quo? Cue thousands of copyright lawyers getting right back in line to issue random lawsuits.

No, a blanket statement "linking is not illegal" is both constitutional, and will drastically reduce this drain on the efficiency of the courts.

[cpierson]

This is actually making a very strong argument to protect hyperlinks and the right to use them - but to do so under the lens that hyperlinks are free speech.

Much like newspapers have the right to say whatever they want. Of course, there are limitations. People can sue the NY Times, but it's not easy - the burden of proof is on the people bringing the suit. The 'strict scrutiny' standard, as I understand it, would make it very difficult for someone to attack hyperlinking. It does, however, enable that discussion in the case of extreme situations.