Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. [9] Page 6 In holding that the Federation ought not to be found liable for the material On the evidence before me, there is nothing in the network newsletter to suggest a defamatory comment if a reader of the network newsletter did no more than read the newsletter. In order to read the alleged defamatory comments, it was necessary to go to the Bopeep Forum. The address of the Bopeep Forum was listed in the Network newsletter. This comment was contained among a myriad of other unobjectionable comments posted on that site (i.e. the Bopeep Forum). The law has held liable those who perpetuate defamatory comments by permitting such comments to remain at premises controlled by them even though they did not author or authorize the original publication. See Byrne v. Deane, [1937] 2 All E.R. 204, Hellar v. Bianco, 111 Cal. App. 2d 424 (Cal. 1952), Tacket v. General Motors Corp., 836 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir.1987). Additionally, liability has been found where a defendant wilfully directed others to defamatory statements when he neither authored nor authorized their publication on premises not controlled by him. See Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A). Common to each of these two lines of authorities is that the defendant had knowledge of the defamatory words and it lay within his power to remove the offending words and he failed to do so or he directed others to the words. It is argued by the plaintiff that merely informing others in the context of forwarding a newsletter that makes reference to a website without reference or knowledge of its contents constitutes the publication of the defamatory words contained within the Bopeep Forum which was at the referred website. Some analogous assistance may be found in cases where reference was made to a magazine article that contains the defamatory words without repetition of the article. In MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S. (2d) 520 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. 1952), Eder J. of the New York County Supreme Court held that such reference did not amount to a republication of the libel contained in the magazine article. Eder J. relied upon an earlier New York Court of Appeal decision in Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946) that held that the simple mention of an article that contained defamatory 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) found on the Bopeep Forum the judge said this at paras. 51-59: