NEWS

Liability for Defamation in the Age of Social Media

The High Court of Australia’s ruling in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27 has raised some eyebrows and may be a valid cause of alarm for media outlets. Essentially, the High Court concluded that media outlets are legally responsible as “publishers” for third parties’ comments posted on their Facebook pages. If comments are found to be defamatory in nature, media outlets may be held liable as publishers of the posts.

Background facts

The case revolves around the content produced by news outlets including The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian regarding former Northern Territory youth detainee Dylan Voller. This content was published and shared on Facebook pages that were maintained by the appellants and publicly accessible to users, who are able to view and comment on the posts. Potentially defamatory comments regarding Mr Voller were then posted by readers on the Facebook pages, triggering the launch of these defamation proceedings.

Defamation law in New South Wales

The Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) refers to the ‘publication of defamatory matter with the definition of ‘matter’ being inclusive of articles, reports or other things communicated via traditional or electronic forms of media.

It has long been the case that a person or entity can become liable for the continued publication of defamatory comments by unauthorised third parties on physical walls or noticeboards controlled by them once they become aware of the comments and fail to remove them. Section 32 of the Act, however, also makes available the defence of innocent defamation, which is intended to protect people or entities who unwittingly publish defamatory matter without negligence on their part. Establishment of the defence turns upon the state of the publisher’s knowledge of a defamatory publication.

Finding

The High Court affirmed the NSW Supreme Court’s ruling in finding that the appellants were liable as publishers of readers’ Facebook comments. By maintaining their Facebook pages, the media outlets were responsible for facilitating, encouraging and thereby assisting the posting of comments by the third-party Facebook users. Where the operator of the page – a kind of electronic bulletin board – posts material with the intention that third parties will comment on material posted, the operator cannot escape being a publisher of the comments of those third parties.

Implications of the High Court’s ruling

This decision confirms that proof of a voluntary act of participating in the dissemination of the defamatory matter is enough to make an entity a publisher.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623