Australian High Court Ruling May See Media Outets Held Legally Accountable for his or her Facebook Posts

A new court ruling could have a significant impact on how news content is shared online, especially ensuring less sensationality in Facebook posts that are designed to generate maximum response.

Last week that The Australian High Court upheld a judgment This could potentially result in Australian media companies being held liable for user comments left on their respective Facebook pages.

The outcome has raised a number of new concerns about possible restrictions on journalistic freedom of speech and obstruction to reporting capacity. But the complexity of the case goes deeper than the opening headline. Yes, the High Court ruling gives media companies more leeway to be held legally accountable for comments on their social media pages, but the whole nuance of the ruling is specifically aimed at ensuring that inflammatory posts are not made with the clear intention of doing so shared by baiting comments and shares.

The case comes from one Investigation in 2016who found inmates of a Darwin juvenile detention center being severely ill-treated, even tortured, while in detention. In subsequent media coverage of the incident, some media outlets tried to provide more context on the victims of this torture, with a handful of publications highlighting these victims’ criminal records as an alternative narrative in the case.

One of the former inmates, Dylan Voller, alleges that subsequent media accounts of him were both false and defamatory, leading to Voller seeking damages for the published claims. Voller himself was the focus of several articles, including a headline Pierce in The Australian “Dylan Voller’s list of prison incidents exceeds 200”, which highlighted the many injustices Voller reportedly committed that led to his imprisonment.

The case related to Facebook comments arose when these reports were republished on the Facebook pages of the outlets in question. The core of Voller’s argument is that the framing of these articles, especially within Facebook posts, has led to negative comments from users of the platform within Facebook’s algorithm.

So the crux of the case boils down to one critical point – it’s not that publications can now simply be sued for people’s comments on their Facebook posts, but rather how the content in such posts is framed and Whether there is a clear connection between the Facebook post itself and the question of whether this has attracted defamatory comments and the perception of the community that can harm a person (it is not clear whether the same regulations apply to a company as such).

Indeed in the original case notes, Voller’s Legal Department argued that the publications in question:

“Should have known that there was a” significant risk of defamatory observations “after publication, partly due to the nature of the articles”

So the complexity here goes well beyond noting that publishers can now be sued for comments on their Facebook page, because the real impetus is that those posting content on Facebook on behalf of a media publisher need to be more careful in the real world Wording of their contributions. Because if subsequent defamatory comments can be linked to the post itself and it then turns out that the publisher has called for such a reaction, legal steps can be initiated.

In other words, publishers can share whatever they want as long as they stick to the facts and don’t try to intentionally share inflammatory social media posts about such an incident.

A case in point is another article published by The Australian on the Dylan Voller case, which, as you can imagine, also drew a long list of critical and negative comments.

But the post itself is not defamatory, it simply presents the facts – it is a quote from a MP, and there is no direct evidence that the editor attempted to trick Facebook users into making comments based on the shared article to comment.

What this is actually about – the ruling forces publishers to view the framing of their Facebook posts as a means of attracting comments. If the editor incites negative comments, he can be held liable – however, there must be clear evidence that both the harm to the person and the intent within their social media post, especially not the linked article, can result in criminal prosecution.

Which might actually be the better way. In the last ten years, media incentives have been changed so much by online algorithms because it is obviously beneficial for publishers to share angry, emotionally charged headlines in order to spark comments and shares, which then ensures maximum reach.

This is expanded to include misinterpretations, half-truths, and plain lies to trigger that user reaction, and if there is a way to hold publishers accountable, this seems a useful approach, as opposed to proposed reforms of Section 230 laws in the USA, which would restrict the freedom of the press more.

Again, this judgment applies specifically to Facebook posts, and the wording is designed to elicit emotional responses in order to attract engagement. Proving a definitive link between a Facebook update and any personal injury will continue to be difficult, as is the case with all defamation cases. But perhaps this finding will lead Facebook page managers in the media to be more factual in their updates rather than inciting comments in order to increase the reach of the algorithm.

As such, while it opens media companies to increased liability, it could actually be a way forward to introduce more factual reporting and hold publishers accountable if they trigger online mob attacks based on their way of looking at a case.

Because it’s clear that this is happening – the best way to get comments and shares on Facebook is to create an emotional response which then gets people to comment, share, etc.

If a Facebook post turns out to be a clear cause and can cause reputational damage, it seems like a positive move – although it’s inevitably associated with an increased risk for social media managers.