Canberra: Australia’s highest court on Wednesday made a landmark that ruled that media outlets were “publishers” from comments that were allegedly defaming those posted by third parties on their official Facebook page.
The High Court rejected the argument by several largest media organizations in Australia – Fairfax media publications, national news and Australian news channels – that for people to become publishers, they must be aware of content slander and intend to deliver it.
The court found in the decision of the majority 5-2 that by facilitating and encouraging comments, the company has participated in their communication.
The decision to open a media organization to be sued for defamation by the former Dylan Dylan Voller adolescence.
Voler wants to demand television broadcasters and newspaper publishers on comments on the Facebook page of Sydney Morning Herald, AfroCate Center, Sky News Australia and bolt reports.
The case of defamation launched at the new Southern State Supreme Court in 2017 was detained while a separate question whether the media company was responsible for comments Facebook users decided.
The company posted content on their courtyards about news stories that referred Voler time at the Northern Juvenile Detention Center.
Facebook users respond by posting comments tutosated by Voller is slanderous.
News Corp.
Australia, who has two broadcast programs and two of the three newspapers targeted in cases of defamation, which calls for the law to be changed.
The verdict “is significant for anyone who maintains pages of public social media by finding them can be responsible for comments posted by other people on the page even when they are not aware of the comments,” said Australian Corp executive chief Michael Miller said in a statement.
“This highlights the need for urgent legislative reform and I call for Australian lawyers to overcome this anomaly and bring Australian law along with comparable West democracy,” Miller added.
Nine, the new owner of Sydney Morning Herald, said that having the current review of the defamation law by the Australian state government and the region will take into account the verdict and consequences for the publisher.
“We are clearly disappointed with the results of the decision, because it will have a consequence for what we can post on social media in the future,” nine statements.
“We also recorded positive steps taken by people like Facebook first starting which now allows publishers to turn off the comments on the story,” Nine added.
Facebook does not immediately respond to a comment request.
Voler’s lawyer welcomed the verdict for its broader implications for the publisher.
“This is a historic advanced step in achieving justice for Dylan and also in protecting individuals, especially those who are in a vulnerable position, from being subject to unmatched social media attacks,” said a lawyer statement.
“This decision bears the responsibility where it should be; in media companies with great resources, to monitor public comments in a situation where they know there is a strong possibility of an individual who is tamed,” the statement added.
The decision of the High Court upholds the verdict from two lower courts on the question of responsibility.
The previous court governed that people could be responsible for the advanced publication of the slanderous statement on the platform they were control, such as the bulletin board, only after they realized the comments.