Australia top court rules media outlets allowing defamatory comments can be sued
On Wednesday, Australia's top court issued a landmark decision declaring that media organisations are "publishers" of allegedly defamatory remarks posted by third parties on their official Facebook pages.
FollowIn what may be a watershed moment in social media platform usage rules, the highest Australian court has ruled that defamatory remarks on media organisations' social media sites are their duty. This might pave the way for similar decisions in other nations. On Wednesday, Australia's top court issued a landmark decision declaring that media organisations are "publishers" of allegedly defamatory remarks posted by third parties on their official Facebook pages.Â
The High Court rejected an argument advanced by several of Australia's largest media organisations, including Fairfax Media Publications, Nationwide News, and Australian News Channel, that in order to be a publisher, one must be aware of the defamatory material and plan to convey it.
By a 5-2 majority judgment, the court determined that the corporations had participated in their communication by allowing and encouraging remarks. The judgement paves the door for former juvenile prisoner Dylan Voller to sue the media for slander. Voller intends to sue the television network and newspaper publishers in connection with remarks made on the Facebook sites of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia, and The Bolt Report.
His defamation lawsuit, which was filed in the state Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2017, was put on hold until the separate issue of whether the media firms were responsible for Facebook users' remarks was resolved. The businesses shared information on their social media accounts regarding news reports concerning Voller's stay in a juvenile prison centre in the Northern Territory. Facebook users replied with slanderous remarks, according to Voller.
News Corp Australia, which owns two of the three newspapers and two of the two TV programmes at issue in the defamation action, has urged for the legislation to be amended. Voller's attorneys hailed the judgement because of its broader ramifications for publishers.
