Social Media Users Beware - Who is responsible for publications on social media?

Danielle Edwards • Oct 22, 2021
In September 2021, the High Court held in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller; Nationwide News Pty Limited v Voller; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller (Voller) that media outlets may be held accountable for comments made by third party users on their Facebook pages as publishers. By extension, it is foreseeable that companies and organisations may now be held to be liable in defamation for comments that are made by third parties on their social media platforms.  

What is defamation?

In summary, defamation is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone, whether it be a company or individual, by communicating a defamatory meaning which may arise from the imputations of the publication.

An essential element of defamation law in Australia is that the material must be published. Publication can occur by a variety of methods of communication, including by spoken words or audible sounds, written or printed matter, drawings or photographs, signs or gestures, broadcast or telecast material, live theatrical performances or the display of objects in public. 

Intention is not an essential element of defamation. A person or entity can be held liable for publishing defamatory material even if they did not intend to defame anyone. A person can also be held liable as the publisher of defamation if they failing to act or remove the defamatory material.

Voller case: the background

Dylan Voller was a young Aboriginal man who was mistreated in a Northern Territory youth detention centre. Mr Voller’s mistreatment was documented in an ABC Four Corners Report in 2016 which then sparked a Royal Commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory. After the Royal Commission commenced, Mr Voller began making media appearances to discuss his mistreatment. Different media outlets began sharing stories, interviews and videos of Mr Voller on their Facebook pages. Some Facebook users began leaving defamatory comments of Mr Voller on the Facebook pages of those media outlets that had shared content about Mr Voller.
 
Instead of suing the authors of those defamatory comments, Mr Voller sued the media outlets (Fairfax Media, Nationwide News and Sky News) arguing that they were responsible for publishing the defamatory comments

Voller case: the argument

The Voller case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of NSW. The primary judge considered whether Mr Voller had "established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant[s] in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users". The media outlets argued that there was no case against them but the Supreme Court found in favour of Mr Voller and held that the media outlets held the burden of publishing the defamatory content. 

This decision was appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal and then to the High Court. 

The High Court dismissed the appeal and ultimately held that the media outlets were the publishers of the third-party Facebook user comments, affirming the decision made by the Supreme Court. In the reasons for their decision, the majority said that “each appellant by the creation of a public Facebook page and the posting of content on that page, facilitated, encouraged and thereby assisted the publication of comments from third-party Facebook users.” The High Court said that any degree of participation in the process of communication, however minor, makes the participant a publisher

Implications of the decision 

The decision confirmed that media outlets have an active responsibility to monitor and censor comments that are damaging or inappropriate that are published on their Facebook pages. 

Prior to the Voller decision, social media platforms (such as Facebook) did not provide users with the option to turn off comments made on their pages. However, Facebook has since modified their platform to provide users with greater control over comments published on their page. 

What does this mean for you?

The effect of this decision will likely extend beyond media outlets and Facebook and apply to all people and organisations that maintain their own social media platforms. It is therefore important for all people and organisations that maintain their own social media platforms to ensure they tighten up their review mechanisms and make an active effort to regularly monitor what third parties are publishing on their pages. 

By Danielle Williams (Associate) and Matilda Lloyd (Paralegal)

If you would like further information in relation to how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 or by email at office@bailiwicklegal.com.au.

For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au/

The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on this information.
05 Mar, 2024
Find out what we have been up to and recent events in our March 2024 newsletter .
20 Feb, 2024
The Human Rights Commission may take action against employers who fail to actively eliminate sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation in the workplace, as part of a positive duty reform. While the reform itself was introduced under the Sex Discrimination Act in 2022, a change was put in place last December - and every employer, including those in the agricultural sector, is affected. This change has provided the commission with new powers to investigate and enforce compliance with positive duty and investigate organisations or businesses where it "reasonably suspects" non-compliance. What does this mean for shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers? Speaking at the WA Shearing Industry Association (WASIA) general meeting last month, Bailiwick Legal solicitor Matilda Lloyd said the enforcement power involved inquiries and investigations similar to WorkSafe. She said a complaint did not have to be made for an inspector from the commission to visit and look over a workplace, and see if there is any kind of sexual harassment occurring. "The commission looks at policies and procedures, and essentially you need to be able to demonstrate that you're compliant with this positive duty. "When you think about it in the context of a shearing shed, it is the safety checklist you have in place for when people enter the shed. "Those are the things you need to consider with sexual harassment as well." Ms Lloyd said the commissioner never had the power to conduct an investigation before and, as such, practically how it was going to work was an unknown. "We don't know whether they're going to be coming out and doing regular inspections, what those inspections are going to look like in terms of time or how thorough they are going to be, " sh e said. "They need to be thought of the same way as a WorkSafe investigation, whereby it could happen at any point whether a complaint is made or not. "Investigators will expect employers to show that they are actively trying to eliminate this form of unlawful conduct." If an inquiry occurs, what will happen? If an employer wasn't taking the correct measures to stop sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation from occurring, they could be issued a compliance notice. Ms Lloyd said if the notice wasn't adhered to and an inspector returned, they could apply to the Federal Court to have that positive duty enforced. What is positive duty? Ms Lloyd said a positive duty was a legal obligation on an employer or person conducting a business or undertaking to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful behaviours in the context of work, workplaces and working relationships. In the case of shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers, she said that obligation was on the employer and applied to all staff, workers, contractors, customers and people entering, for example, a shearing shed. She said the obligation was "very broad" and applied right across the board. "Enforcing positive duty is pretty straightforward in terms of the employer, but when we look at the other parties involved it is extensive, " Ms Lloyd said. "When we are talking about sexual harassment in the workplace we are talking in the shed and in a vehicle on the way to work or another shed. "It is also offsite, so if you are having work drinks at the quarters or wherever afterwards - that's also a workplace within the definitions of the act. "The obligation applies across the board in all of these circumstances. "And also applies to visitors, so if you have farmers and they bring their wives, it is anyone coming into that shed or environment." In the context of positive duty, what do contractors need to do? Firstly, employers need to understand what sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, discrimination and victimisation is. Ms Lloyd said employers were responsible for leading their team, so it was important to understand what the laws were and how they affected not only them, but their employees. "When we talk about sexual harassment we talk about unwelcome conduct that is of a sexual nature or requests for sexual favours, touching, requesting dates and so forth," she said. "Whereas sex-based harassment is harassment that is targeted at a particular sex. "This could be making sexist comments about a woman because she's a woman or making sexist comments about a man because he's a man. "Then victimisation is about targeting someone because they've made a complaint." Ms Lloyd said a conversation then needed to be had to educate employees, whether that be face-to-face, by Whatsapp or having it displayed in the shed. She said there were resources and guidelines available through the Human Rights Commission, which helped with this. "Have that conversation - as an employer understand what sexual harassment is but then talk to your employees and be serious about educating your employees, " Ms Lloyd said. "It is about actually having that conversation and then thinking about what material can be given to them. "The whole point is to make it easy, so people understand. "Then it goes into training and support - is there someone in your team people can talk to?" The seven standards The commission has released guidelines for complying with the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The guidelines are centred around seven standards - leadership, culture, knowledge, risk management, support, reporting and response, and monitoring, evaluation and transparency. Examples of practical actions that organisations or businesses can take to meet each of the standards are set out in the guidelines. Ms Lloyd said, as each business is different, it depended on how big a team was, what was going to be practical and cost-effective in the workplace. She said the commission would look at the different standards if there was an investigation or inquiry. How often do employers need to talk to their team about this? Ms Lloyd said it should be looked at similarly to safety or work related issues, whether that be a toolbox or regular meeting once a week or every couple of days. She said if a contractor was starting a new job or visiting a place they hadn't been to before, it was about having that conversation upon arrival. "When everyone's preparing for their first break, sit down and have a chat about general safety as well, " Ms Lloyd said. "That's the first step, and then follow it up a month later when you start a new shed. "It is about consistently and actively taking measures to create a safe space. "It seems obvious that once you've gone through your checklist you then talk to the people coming into that environment, who are your workers, and alert them to what you have found. "Similarly, with positive duty, a checklist is proof that you are doing the right thing if you are audited." Does insurance cover sexual discrimination cases? Having insurance does not diminish positive duty, it just safeguards employers against potential damage and loss against their business if they are sued. Ms Lloyd said sexual discrimination cases, which travelled through the Federal Court, were not cheap and often have adverse outcomes from an award of damages perspective. "If we talk about Work Health and Safety, as you know, that is a serious issue you have to take onboard and consider, " she said, "And that's the way I think employers need to frame their conduct when talking about and implementing measures to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation." Is an employer covered if they have put everything in place, but those rules are still broken? Ms Lloyd said an employer would be protected if they have been able to eliminate as much as they can with the resources available to them. She said it was important to remember sexual harassment and discrimination is unlawful conduct. "In terms of positive duty, by taking all reasonable steps and measures given the resources available to you, you will be able to mount a solid defence against any claim. "If you've done your duty positively and it can be demonstrated that you've exercised your role in appropriate fashion, then that will be solid defence." For more information on the positive duty reform and seven standards, go to humanrights.gov.au
14 Dec, 2023
See what's been happening and current topics of interest in our December 2023 newsletter .
Share by: