Yeah, that ruling was bizarre, though disclaimers don't really help any. There was a recent ruling that an online newsite who linked to a site offering ways to circumvent DVD encryption was sued for helping to break copyright and forced to remove the link, regardless that it was in a context of a news article and clearly not their content. The opinion was that by linking the high profile tech news site made it easier for people to circumvent DVD encryption, because they made it easier to find that DVD site.

And I remember someone being sentenced for linking to right wing extremist sites in the context of a satirical site of a net activist who wanted to mock some politicians who was in favor of filtering the internet or something. The site pretended to offer a service for people to read to them suppressed sites and in a box was some randomly selected links that claimed to be the most requested for the service to all kinds of controversial sites like gay and anti-gay campaigns, christian fudamentalists, Al-jazeera news, various extremist groups etc, anyway it wasn't a right wing site but satire and he was still sentenced for facillitating distribution of right wing propaganda or something. Though the net activist contested the ruling and the second higher court found him not guilty, and the next higher court when the prosecution contested that decision confirmed that ruling. But I mean the poor guy now had to go through three court levels now just for a link.