R. v. Smith, 2012 ONCA 892 deals with a specially nasty obscenity case. In so doing the Court made a ruling that meta-tags, banners and links on an Internet website are relevant in considering the overall context of the site:
 The meta-tags, banners, and links to other websites were admitted at the first trial. In Smith I, this court affirmed the trial judge's ruling on this issue, saying at para. 62:
The trial judge did not err in admitting this evidence. The meta-tags, banners and links on an Internet website are analogous to the dustcover and preface to a book: they inform the viewer about the content of the publication and provide context for the work.
 The same evidence was led at the second trial, and the defence made no objection at that time. Accordingly, the trial judge did not make a formal ruling on the admission of this evidence.
 On appeal, the appellant asserts that the ruling in Smith I has been overtaken by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes v. Newton,  3 S.C.R. 269 ("Crookes"). Based on that decision, he argues, the banners, links and meta-tags were not relevant to the content of the appellant's website and should not have been admitted.
 I do not accept this submission. First, Crookes says nothing about meta-tags and banners. Second, with respect to hyperlinks, Crookes and this case are quite different. Crookes was a defamation case where the issue was whether creating a hyperlink to a third party's defamatory work is the type of act that can constitute 'publishing' that work. The court's focus was on the sufficiency of the act for the purposes of defamation; its comment, at para. 30, that "a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral" must be understood with that in mind. In this case, the hyperlinks were adduced only as context for the content that the appellant published on his own website.