About Us

We work collaboratively with our clients to build strong, sustainable relationships. Our team is committed to delivering consistent high standards of service, and we understand the importance of accessibility. Working with us, you'll enjoy open communication, meaning well scoped, properly resourced and effectively managed matters.

Learn More

Latest Case

Providing strategic advice on expansion structures November 16, 2018

Founded in Bondi Beach in 2012, Bailey Nelson has rapidly grown into a global eyewear retailer and service provider with boutiques in Australia, London, Canada and New Zealand. The strong demand for their products and … Continued

Latest News

Maddocks appointed to Commonwealth Government legal services panel August 19, 2019

Monday 19 August 2019 The strong growth of Maddocks in Canberra has been given a further boost by the firm’s appointment to the new Commonwealth Legal Services Panel. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department announced the successful … Continued

Latest Article

Can you avoid an arbitration agreement for ‘convenience? August 22, 2019

Disputes arising from construction and infrastructure projects typically involve multiple contractual relationships, often triggering separate disputes between principal and head contractor, principal and superintendent and head contractor and subcontractor (amongst others). While the most efficient … Continued

Unsocial media – how third party comments on your public Facebook page can get your company in trouble

Media companies, and operators of public Facebook pages generally, should exercise great care and diligence to vet, monitor, and control comments published on their public Facebook pages, as they may be liable as a primary publisher for defamatory comments posted by third party Facebook users. This was made clear in a recent decision of Justice Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd[1].

What happened?

The plaintiff, Dylan Voller, commenced defamation proceedings against three media companies, Fairfax, Australian News Channel and Nationwide News, claiming that they were each liable for third party comments posted on their respective Facebook pages.

Each of the media companies posted a link to news stories that related to the plaintiff, Dylan Voller, on their public Facebook pages. Third party Facebook users then commented on these posts, including some allegedly defamatory comments regarding the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the media publishers were primary publishers of the third party comments for the purposes of defamation.

The preliminary question Justice Rothman had to consider was “Whether the plaintiff has established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users that are alleged to be defamatory?”

Justice Rothman found that each of the media companies was a primary publisher of the third party content and could therefore be liable for any defamatory material. Relevant to this finding, Justice Rothman was satisfied that each of the media companies were aware that, given the nature of the material they were publishing, third party comments were likely to include defamatory material, and it was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting the relevant article to the Facebook page.

 The importance of editorial control

In the decision, his Honour highlighted the distinction to be drawn between primary and secondary participation where a publisher has capacity to control, monitor, and delay the publication of third-party comments, before releasing them to the general public.

Justice Rothman distinguished public Facebook pages from private Facebook pages, and public websites or forums. His Honour noted that for a public website or forum, there is no capacity currently for the administrators or owners to block or hide comments, except after publication. Accordingly, there is no capacity to vet comments, or prevent them from being published. Similarly, there is no function by which the creator of a private Facebook page can vet comments before they are published. This can only occur retrospectively, after publication has already occurred.

Conclusion

Justice Rothman acknowledged that it is necessary to strike a balance between society’s interest in freedom of speech and the free exchange of information and ideas, as against a person’s reputation in society. However in this case, his Honour found that “each defendant was not merely a conduit of the comment”, each was aware that the comments on their initial postings were likely to include defamatory material, and each had the capacity to vet and prevent publication of a third party comment on their initial post. The decision may be subject to an appeal.

Key takeaways

This decision has the potential to apply to other operators of public Facebook pages, not just media companies, and has the capacity to extend to other social media platforms. Operators should be mindful that where they can control what is published, before it is published, then they may be liable in defamation. Organisations should take precautions when publishing content on public Facebook pages, including

  • considering the potential impact of their posts
  • monitoring and vetting third party comments before publishing them.

If you have any questions or require assistance please contact a member of our Dispute Resolution & Litigation team.

AUTHOR
Sasha Di Sipio | Lawyer
+61 3 9258 3823
E sasha.diSipio@maddocks.com.au 

 

[1] [2019] NSWSC 766.

Media companies, and operators of public Facebook pages generally, should exercise great care and diligence to vet, monitor, and control comments published on their public Facebook pages, as they may be liable as a primary publisher for defamatory comments posted by third party Facebook users. This was made clear in a recent decision of Justice Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd[1].

What happened?

The plaintiff, Dylan Voller, commenced defamation proceedings against three media companies, Fairfax, Australian News Channel and Nationwide News, claiming that they were each liable for third party comments posted on their respective Facebook pages.

Each of the media companies posted a link to news stories that related to the plaintiff, Dylan Voller, on their public Facebook pages. Third party Facebook users then commented on these posts, including some allegedly defamatory comments regarding the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the media publishers were primary publishers of the third party comments for the purposes of defamation.

The preliminary question Justice Rothman had to consider was “Whether the plaintiff has established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users that are alleged to be defamatory?”

Justice Rothman found that each of the media companies was a primary publisher of the third party content and could therefore be liable for any defamatory material. Relevant to this finding, Justice Rothman was satisfied that each of the media companies were aware that, given the nature of the material they were publishing, third party comments were likely to include defamatory material, and it was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting the relevant article to the Facebook page.

 The importance of editorial control

In the decision, his Honour highlighted the distinction to be drawn between primary and secondary participation where a publisher has capacity to control, monitor, and delay the publication of third-party comments, before releasing them to the general public.

Justice Rothman distinguished public Facebook pages from private Facebook pages, and public websites or forums. His Honour noted that for a public website or forum, there is no capacity currently for the administrators or owners to block or hide comments, except after publication. Accordingly, there is no capacity to vet comments, or prevent them from being published. Similarly, there is no function by which the creator of a private Facebook page can vet comments before they are published. This can only occur retrospectively, after publication has already occurred.

Conclusion

Justice Rothman acknowledged that it is necessary to strike a balance between society’s interest in freedom of speech and the free exchange of information and ideas, as against a person’s reputation in society. However in this case, his Honour found that “each defendant was not merely a conduit of the comment”, each was aware that the comments on their initial postings were likely to include defamatory material, and each had the capacity to vet and prevent publication of a third party comment on their initial post. The decision may be subject to an appeal.

Key takeaways

This decision has the potential to apply to other operators of public Facebook pages, not just media companies, and has the capacity to extend to other social media platforms. Operators should be mindful that where they can control what is published, before it is published, then they may be liable in defamation. Organisations should take precautions when publishing content on public Facebook pages, including

  • considering the potential impact of their posts
  • monitoring and vetting third party comments before publishing them.

If you have any questions or require assistance please contact a member of our Dispute Resolution & Litigation team.

AUTHOR
Sasha Di Sipio | Lawyer
+61 3 9258 3823
E sasha.diSipio@maddocks.com.au 

 

[1] [2019] NSWSC 766.