"I want to put a hyperlink on my website to an article on another website, so that readers could see the article, read it, and then respond whether negative or positive on my website what they thought of the article. Is this legal?"

The short and easy answer is that it's probably legal. The tougher question is: Should you do it?

For those internetphobes out there, a "hyperlink" is a link that connects one webpage to another. If you ever read a text online and notice that certain words are highlighted in a different color and clickable, those words are hyperlinked. If you click on them, you will be automatically transferred to another website where those words are explained, expanded upon or whatever.

There are two possible objectives you could have in doing this:

—You disapprove of the article content and want to generate negative reactions to it on your website so as to support your own position (this is commonly known as a "hate site").

—You want to create a site on which people can comment on the article either positively or negatively (this is commonly known as a "review site").

First, the good news: American law encourages free speech on the internet and elsewhere. While it is generally good practice to ask someone for permission before linking to their website, it frequently isn't done and is not required when your purpose is to comment on the content of the other site. Even if your opinion is a little, shall we say, loopy, you have the absolute right to express it online, just like other people have the right to tell you what an idiot they think you are.

But what if people were to view the content, react negatively and post a long-winded rant on your website that calls their sanity into question? Are you legally responsible for that?

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act gives online "publishers" absolute immunity for things that are said by third persons (people unrelated to the publisher) on their websites. So if someone says something bad about the article or its author on your website that isn't true and is designed to damage the author's reputation (what lawyers call libel or defamation), you are in the clear unless you "actively contribute" to the defamation (for example, adding a blog post of your own with more inaccurate and damaging information).

Now for the bad news: Just because what you are planning to do is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

If you are planning a hate site, you can expect to hear fairly soon from the article's author (or his lawyers) asking you to cease and desist derogatory web postings. While you have the legal right to ignore that request (or post it on your website as a sign your bloggers' contributions are having some impact), that right wouldn't prevent the author or the other website from suing you and forcing you to assert your First Amendment or Section 230 defense.

You would almost certainly win the lawsuit, and there's a chance a sympathetic judge would feel the lawsuit was frivolous or without merit and make the other website reimburse your legal expenses. There is no assurance, however, that a judge will do that, and the casebooks are filled with silly lawsuits brought solely for the purpose of shutting down a website that cannot afford the time and money to mount a legal defense, even if justified (the technical term for these lawsuits is "strategic lawsuits against public participation," or SLAPPs).

So think carefully before you set up this link on your website. You should at least set up a screening feature for the blog so you can look at postings before they appear on your site and either edit or delete ones you think are going to get you into trouble.

I really question the value of review sites in any event, especially after hearing a horror story from a friend of mine. This friend is the author of several popular how-to books on a particular subject. When his latest book appeared on Amazon, he immediately received three negative reviews (one star out of a possible five) that lowered the book status within the Amazon search engine. When my friend investigated, he discovered that two of the three reviews were from email accounts originating at the publisher of a competing book.

My friend called his publisher, which launched an immediate counterattack: the publisher having 20 of its junior staffers post favorable (five-star) reviews of my friend's book from their personal email accounts in order to offset the three negatives. Fans of the other book counter-counterattacked with more negative reviews and so forth.

The last time I looked, my friend's book has a four-star rating with reviews from over 80 unique Amazon users. Not a single one, I suspect, has actually read the book.

Cliff Ennico ([email protected]) is a syndicated columnist, author and former host of the PBS television series "Money Hunt." This column is no substitute for legal, tax or financial advice, which can be furnished only by a qualified professional licensed in your state. To find out more about Cliff Ennico and other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit our webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: at Pixabay