IANAL. Another thing for the judge to decide? Seems to me
that the
contents of a link in an email placed in evidence
would be part of that
evidence. In reality it is just a
shorthand way to include the text of the link
so why should
it be excluded?
The problem there is that the
page being linked to may (and
almost certainly will) have additional links,
which might be
essential to the meaning of the content (and part of it, so
they should be included.)
These links follow to more links, and before
you know it,
the entire internet is part of the evidence.
Limiting to
one link follow doesn't make sense for evidence
inclusion, and any category or
relevance basis for links
would be very open to interpretation.
This
seems problematic. I suspect link contents would not
automatically be included
as evidence, and each individual
page that is relevant would have to be added.
IANAL.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|