The specific situation could possibly be different for provision of any connect to the defamatory content. Also, there's no reproduction on the defamatory content which the poster can always amend his post. What being published is usually nothing more than a URL and, applying the natural and ordinary meaning construction, this kind of meaningless words can hardly convey an email understandable by human. On the other hand, the hyperlinker must be aware of the material behind his link. Should the actual time of publication is the place a reader is led to look at the defamatory content, the hyperlinker may then be deemed to have maliciously caused the defamatory content to get published.It seems that leading others to many defamatory content is additionally a civil wrong. The English Court of Appeal?s decision Hird v Wood (1894) 38 SJ 234 can often be taken because authority. In this case, the defendant was held to possess published defamatory material by continuously attracting the passers? awareness of a defamatory placard erected beside a road. Furthermore, an individual seemed to be convicted in Chan Nai Ming v HKSAR  2 HKLRD 489 for seeking to distribute infringing copies of the copyright film by offering the ?seed?, which is the factor to downloading the film. If providing a seed towards the infringing copy is usually a wrong, providing one of the links to the defamatory content articles are also analogically a wrong since in each case the wrongdoers act maliciously, although the seed could be the only factor to the infringing copy while the link is just not. Nevertheless, how much malice in providing the link to defamatory content can vary greatly in a variety of cases since the hyperlinker mightn't have the intention to defame the victim such as Hird v Wood, but merely to share this news with other people.