Australia's High Court affirms earlier rulings that media companies can be held responsible for Facebook comments posted under stories on their Facebook Pages
The High Court outcome locks in the position established by the earlier appeals-court ruling on defamatory Facebook comments: publishers, rather than Facebook alone, carry responsibility for comments beneath stories posted to their own Pages. It matters because a publisher’s social distribution channel now also carries a direct defamation exposure.
The practical response surfaced quickly in related coverage, with CNN restricting access to its Australian Facebook Pages, showing that limiting participation can become an immediate risk-control measure rather than merely a community-management choice.
First-order effects
The Sydney Morning Herald and the other appealing media companies remain exposed to claims arising from comments on their Facebook Pages, despite not authoring those comments.
Australian news publishers using Facebook Pages must treat comment access and moderation as part of their publishing risk, as CNN’s later Page restrictions illustrate.
Second-order effects
Facebook’s Australian news Pages become less valuable as distribution venues when publishers restrict access to avoid the liability confirmed by the High Court.
Australian online-defamation rules may increasingly turn on an actor’s role in making third-party material available, encouraging platforms and publishers to define more tightly who controls audience interaction.
The trend: The case is part of a broader shift toward assigning legal responsibility for user-generated content according to how actively a service or publisher facilitates its publication.
big yikes. australia's top court rules media companies are responsible for third party comments on their FB pages https://www.abc.net.au/...
@brooklynmarie
Brooke Binkowski on x
@elisethoma5 Not good at all.
@flipprior
@flipprior on x
Hey presumably this also extends to groups: what are the implications for non-media owners of Facebook groups/pages (eg will those admins now be responsible/facing defo actions when a fight erupts between members who post defamatory stuff about each other?)https://www.abc.net.au/…
@film_girl
Christina Warren on x
This is terrifying and awful on every level. https://twitter.com/...
@mefrombefore
@mefrombefore on x
Holy shit the high court of australia thinks that I'm the publisher of replies to my tweets https://www.abc.net.au/...
@dellcam
Dell Cameron on x
Imagine w/o Section 230 the catastrophe of US courts weighing the liability of users at the moment social media companies decided users should also be moderators. https://twitter.com/...
@jason_a_w
Jason Wilson on x
they should all delete their Facebook pages https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@mwhitbourn
Michaela Whitbourn on x
The High Court has ruled that media outlets are legally responsible as “publishers” for third parties' comments on their Facebook pages, in a decision with implications for all Facebook users. https://www.smh.com.au/... via @smh #auslaw
@mikerugnetta
Mike Rugnetta on x
“The court found that, by creating a public Facebook page and posting content, the [news] outlets had facilitated, encouraged and thereby assisted the publication of comments from third-party Facebook users, and they were, therefore, publishers of those comments.” https://twitter…
@realcarrickryan
Carrick Ryan on x
Surely Government can simply amend the wording of the relevant defamation legislation to circumvent this? Our defamation laws are among the worst in the World and are in desperate need of a complete overhaul. I'm sure we had an AG that was intending on fixing that? https://twitte…
@jenniferbeckett
Dr Jennifer Beckett on x
Will this all mean more work for already stretched social media mangers? Absolutely. Does it require really specific training? Of course, moderation is actually a highly skilled and contextual job. Will mods need more support? You bet 4/
@geofffield
Geoff Field on x
So either media companies will need moderators 24 hours a day - or comments will be turned off. https://www.abc.net.au/...
@pandemic_times
Ed Day on x
@MWhitbourn ... Not all FB users. Being defamed by someone with a few dozen followers and little reach is not the same as being publicly smeared and abused via posts from biggest news media companies in Australia. Both companies have histories of not wanting to pay for social med…
@matt_nurse
Matthew Nurse on x
This has huge implications for monitoring the spread of misinformation via comments on social media pages. https://www.abc.net.au/...
@michaelwestbiz
@michaelwestbiz on x
Another shocker for free speech. Another rich income stream for the show ponies of defamation law. Dylan Voller deserves justice but High Court ruling means publishers can be sued for comments made on their feed by anon Twitter or Facebook posters? https://www.abc.net.au/...
@scotty_mcdonald
Scotty McDonald on x
No, that media outlet isn't “silencing your opinion because it doesn't fit their agenda,” your comment has left them legally vulnerable. https://www.abc.net.au/...
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
WTH from down under. I'm going to call it a night and pretend I didn't see this until tomorrow morning. I do hope to then wake up knowing it was just a bad dream that media companies are the ones responsible for toxic sludge on their Facebook pages. https://twitter.com/...
@elisethoma5
Elise Thomas on x
But also RIP Sky News on Facebook. #auspol
@leonardjcohen
@leonardjcohen on x
Feed the Murdochians to the High Court for lunch. https://www.abc.net.au/...
@elisethoma5
Elise Thomas on x
Wow. This is a big deal. https://www.abc.net.au/...
@chrismessina
@chrismessina on x
Voiceover Man: “In a world without section 230, in a place without the First Amendment, a place known to others as ‘Australia’ ... media companies are liable for the comments that users post on their stories on Facebook.” https://apnews.com/... /cc @mmasnick