Who is responsible for what we write on line?

[Robert Zwilling]

Australian Court Rules Media Orgs Are Liable for Defamation Posted to Facebook by Random Users

Does this only apply to postings on Facebook? Will it be over ruled immediately?

It's a 3 part thing.
#1 The main platform is Facebook who as usual is not responsible.
#2 The owner of the page that is on Facebook, now responsible for what their readers post on their page.
#3 The Person who posts the comment who is apparently not responsible?

#2 is "news organizations were money-making enterprises that were profiting from the encouragement of comments on their Facebook pages."

Does this go down to the point of threads where #1 is any website that has members posting messages where as #2 those members create a thread where #3 other members postings are posted to the thread?

 

[Brian G Turner]

It depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK, where forums or other online communities are not moderated, then the individual posting is legally responsible for any content posting. However, where forums and other online communities are actively moderated, content posted is considered to have editorial approval and therefore both the website owner and the individual can be held liable for defamation.

There have been a couple of times in the past couple of years when I've had to remove content from chrons for that reason - specifically where named individuals were criticised for misconduct when delivering professional services. If allowed to remain, that would mean my business would have been held responsible for such statements and therefore potentially liable for defamation, should those named individuals wished to have taken action.

A point of note is that it doesn't matter whether any allegations of misconduct are true or not - a claim of defamation is simply that, and it's up to the courts to make a judgement on the matter. However, my business is not in a position to be dragged through the courts to contest any such criticisms are best removed, even if that sounds unfair.

And, yes, I've had a couple of experiences in the past where I've had to try and fight off malicious claims of defamation for what other people have posted on forums I used to manage. I've therefore learned what my safe limits are - at least, I hope I have.

 

[Harpo]

Who is responsible for what we write online?

The Fingertip Demons!!!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Oh, and just to clarify - saying that you don't enjoy a particular author or film-maker is absolutely fine.

However, if someone posted that their neighbour, Fred Bloggs, was a conniving thief, then that's potential defamation.

 

[Paul_C]

Oh, and just to clarify - saying that you don't enjoy a particular author or film-maker is absolutely fine.

However, if someone posted that their neighbour, Fred Bloggs, was a conniving thief, then that's potential defamation.

He bloody well is though . . .

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Not quite sure I understand all the ins and outs of this, but in essence I think both Facebook and the media companies mentioned are in effect publishers. Facebook provides the platform and I'm guessing defers some sort of power of moderation to the companies in question. Think of it like a newspaper. If I wrote something defamatory about Joe Bloggs, I'd be liable and if the paper was foolish enough to publish it say in the personal columns, they'd be liable too.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[tinkerdan]

It is safe to assume that anything you post personally you are responsible for--first and foremost. Always keep that in mind. Next the platform you post it on is responsible for moderating--regardless of any disclaimers--and for that you should assume that anything that gets too defamatory might easily be removed; which is what their disclaimer should say rather than trying to foist all the blame on those posting.

It is not safe to assume that any mistake you make will be caught by the platform and administrators, so it should always fall on the posting party to re-read the post and edit out anything that might be suspect.

It should also remain noted that the www. is a wild west(wired-world) and there are posters who simply don't care; which is why every platform should have moderators and every blog or other should moderate any open comment formats.

Back in the early to mid 80's the web(as I knew it)consisted mostly of a group of universities worldwide that were connected through various means as a way of quickly exchanging ideas for learning purposes. Back then they had bulletin boards and those allowed discussions and gave birth the the term flaming; something which could have been made positive had it confined itself to realm of peer pressure rather than a means of ridiculing and silencing the one being flamed. The overt overuse of flaming could well have given birth to the concept of denial of service; which made it necessary to at least moderate these venue to quickly bring that behavior to a halt. One of the things that necessitated the control was that flaming was closely tied with defamation.

More importantly, though is the concept of self regulation. If the Wild West Web wanted to maintain it's sense of freedom there is a necessity to self regulate to avoid having a higher authority come in and regulate things for you.

So it really devolves on all of us to make things work the way they are.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think both Facebook and the media companies mentioned are in effect publishers.

Facebook consistently deny they're a publisher. They claim to be a tech platform, and therefore they are not liable for the content on their platform because they haven't produced it and they have no editorial control over it. That's the effect of their testimony to Congress anyway. Their argument is that the owner of the page is responsible, not Facebook itself. So far, no court has ever ruled that Facebook are a publisher, and therefore liable for the content on their site, and they have managed to avoid legislation that would class them as a publisher.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

They do indeed say that. Have repeated it for years to defend themselves against actions against themselves. But when it suits them, they'll change their minds. Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes

And of course there's the other problem they have - they moderate content, choosing to allow and disallow what people post. How can they do that if they're not a publisher? Think of it like a paper manufacturer. If they just produce paper and people can write whatever they want on it, and they take no action, they clearly aren't a publisher. But the moment a paper manufacturer does start moderating what people write on their products, they essentially become one.

I think the point here is to watch this space. This is probably going to be biggest internet / court battle over the next few years. Actually it probably already is.

Cheers, Greg.