Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Australia The Media Facebook The Courts

Are News Outlets Responsible For Comments Left On Their Facebook Pages? (afr.com) 122

Leading media outlets in Australia lost big in court when a judge ruled publishers can be sued for comments left on their Facebook pages.

They're now considering an appeal, reports the Financial Express: The court upheld an earlier ruling in the Supreme Court that the outlets were "first or primary distributors" of the comments about Dylan Voller, a former detainee at Northern Territory's Don Dale Youth Detention Centrethat were attached to news stories in December 2016 and January 2017... It said the outlets "encouraged and facilitated the making of comments by third parties which when posted on the page were made available to Facebook users generally and were therefore publishers of the comments".

The court also held that the outlets could not rely on a defence of innocent dissemination...

Justice John Basten said: "Perhaps with a degree of hyperbole, they submitted that they were more closely equivalent to the supplier of paper to a newspaper owner or the supplier of a computer to an author." He dismissed the suggestion the outlets played "no active" role in regard to the postings on their Facebook pages. "The point of distinction may be accepted; however, it does not follow that they were not publishers,'' Justice Basten said. "They facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory."

In a separate judgment, Justice Tony Meagher and Acting Justice Carolyn Simpson said that by inviting the public to comment, the outlets "accepted responsibility for the use of their Facebook facilities".

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are News Outlets Responsible For Comments Left On Their Facebook Pages?

Comments Filter:
  • The readers are responsible for how they react

    • Facebook is responsible for offering a channel.

      But the main problem here is the issues at stake here - freedom of speech. If people with fringe opinions feel that they are oppressed then it builds tensions.

      So too much political correctness can be as bad as too saying whatever you like.

      • Re: Of course not (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zaelath ( 2588189 ) on Sunday May 31, 2020 @11:43PM (#60129942)

        This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.

        Newspapers are effectively required to moderate their comment sections online, they can't just side step that by suggesting people go comment on their Facebook page instead.

        NB; the only real difference here is the ability to sue someone for defamation with deeper pockets, the stuff that was posted could have led to law suits for defamation against individuals, but it's not really worth it.

        • It's quite fascinating... All the Aussies I know are relaxed, freedom-loving, "live and let live" sort of people. Yet the Aussie government seems like it's constantly trying to out do North Korea as a humorless joyless hyper-conformist police state. What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Zaelath ( 2588189 )

            Nah, "live and let live" does not give you carte blanche to be a c*nt, it's rather the antithesis. Also, the government has 3/4 of stuff all to do with the courts.

            • Nah, "live and let live" does not give you carte blanche to be a c*nt

              Actually, it does.

              You don't need freedom to be a nice person because no one will object to that.

              The point of freedom is to protect assholes (or "cunts" in Australian) and let people say offensive stuff.

              You have no right to not be offended. Defamation and libel should have high barriers to prosecution, and the burden of proof should be firmly on the plaintiff to show the statements were false and malicious.

              • Then you don't understand that phrase.

              • We all know you're a c*nt, Bill, but in this case it's about defamation which has an extremely high burden of proof so I'm not sure what you're on about there.

                Oh, and we literally have obscenity laws and state based censorship here, so you might wanna check that out before you come over here being all c*nty.

          • by vlad30 ( 44644 )

            It's quite fascinating... All the Aussies I know are relaxed, freedom-loving, "live and let live" sort of people. Yet the Aussie government seems like it's constantly trying to out do North Korea as a humorless joyless hyper-conformist police state. What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?

            The government doesn't really make this decision it is the courts which are heavily biased to the left and socialism particularly our judges who give very lenient sentences as the poor little snowflake claims they wee abused by parents teachers or anyone else who tried to help them. self responsibility is not even entertained. Same with this the commentator is not responsible for taking the time to compose and write the offensive paragraph it is the big bad company that supplied them with the tool.

            they sh

          • Re: Of course not (Score:5, Interesting)

            by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @04:54AM (#60130456)

            I'm not sure freedom-loving is a way I'd describe us, we generally love some freedoms, but are also quote happy to live in a nanny state. Most Australians were quite happy with laws restricting access to firearms, hell with the Amnesty program the overwhelming majority of firearms were recovered and destroyed. The government has rules about everything, and culturally they seem to be generally followed.

            As for comparing it to North Korea, that's hyperbole, but it's worth remembering that Australia does not have and has never had free speech. We have protected political speech, and we enjoy some freedoms that are granted via common law cases, but we don't have freedoms in our core constitution.

            The problem is one of generalising. All Americans I know are kind, welcoming, and not the type to loot or riot. But here we are. It only takes 2 people to end up in court: someone who did something, and someone who is offended by it.

            We may be a nation of criminals, but don't all think alike :-)

            • " but we don't have freedoms in our core constitution."

              Chapter V Sec. 116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
              The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

              Looks like freedom of religion to me...

              • by dargaud ( 518470 )
                Freedom of religion is only ONE very narrow freedom. One that I personally couldn't care less about. There are many freedoms which are a lot more important.
                • Freedom of religion is only ONE very narrow freedom. One that I personally couldn't care less about. There are many freedoms which are a lot more important.

                  Yeah, it's so very narrow and unimportant that it appears to be the only individual freedom enumerated in the entire Australian constitution.

              • Looks like freedom of religion to me...

                Indeed. But we're talking about speech, the right to publish and our general "love of freedom". People's imaginary friends are not only off topic, but don't in any way change my point which is that we are not "freedom loving" and that we actually have fuck all freedoms enumerated in the constitution.

                Sidenote: That constitutional law was challenged many years ago, can't remember the case, but it additionally established that the government gets to decide if your religion is legitimately a religion or not.

                • Indeed.

                  we actually have fuck all freedoms enumerated in the constitution.

                  As long as "fuck all" = 1, eh? You were the one who said "we don't have freedoms in our core constitution". All you've done is prove you don't know your constitution that well.

                  People's imaginary friends are not only off topic

                  Nobody's talking about "imaginary friends" but you. And you must've forgotten going on about gun laws in your post. Was that somehow "on-topic" to you?

                  Sidenote: That constitutional law was challenged many years ago, can't remember the case, but it additionally established that the government gets to decide if your religion is legitimately a religion or not.

                  Yes, used against Scientologists I believe. But hey, no need to stray off-topic.

                  • Colloquially, the term "Fuck all" as a count or enumeration isn't specifically zero, it's more akin to "a vanishingly small number". If I were to say there's "fuck all fish today" while fishing, it doesn't mean there are no fish in the area; it means maybe I've caught a couple of tiny fish in the course of three hours. Possibly even one keeper (when you might expect half a dozen).

          • "What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?"

            You should watch the Aussie TV series 'Rake', which explains all this.

            https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1... [imdb.com]

        • This is Australia, mate.

          It is weird that your word "publisher" is so different from ours, the language always seems as if it is actually the same. But then something like this happens and it turns out, no, I have no idea what they're saying at all. The grammar makes sense though. And it appears to mean something.

        • I've yet to see a western country that isn't the US and doesn't have people bragging about not having a First Amendment. Which just shows the wisdom of it.

        • Lets think deeper about the issue - or the straw that broke the camels back This is on top of journalists being raided, and lawyers searched and prosecuted. Australian news outlets are already in deep financial peril, and this will add to costs / liability and staff costs. Many printing presses and regional papers are being canned - for good. Conclusion: Move electronic lock stock and barrel overseas behind several legal blinds. This will be the death of Australian papers and local content. Come the next
        • I look for the good man. I would be your Mistress!! Punish me! =>> http://gg.gg/j5vrf [gg.gg]
        • Re: Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)

          by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @08:26AM (#60130788) Journal

          This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.

          Freedom of speech is a natural right, whether recognized in law or brutally suppressed. But it's never good for society to suppress speech, because humans only have two ways of resolving disputes: words and violence. Let people use their words, even if they offend you, because it beats the alternative.

          • it's never good for society to suppress speech, because humans only have two ways of resolving disputes: words and violence.

            What about when words cause violence such as in incitement to violence, racial hatred etc. That's the problem with freedom of speech, almost nobody believes that it is a fundamental natural right that should not be limited which leads to a debate on what are appropriate limits. While I would tend to side more with the US position of very minimal limitations (despite being unamerican) that does not mean that there are not valid reasons for believing that stricter limits on speech might be better for society

        • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.

          I can't help wonder if that could be used to target obnoxious ads as well then.

      • The choice to follow is the issue

      • Facebook is responsible for offering a channel.

        What about the ISPs and computer manufacturers?

        Shouldn't they accept their fair share of responsibility?

        • You're confusing the venue; Facebook, with the party being held accountable; Fairfax (the publisher).

          Facebook's not being blamed for anything.

      • Freedom of speech only protects you from state censorship an retaliation. Fscebook is not the a state.
        Moreover, the question being posed has nothing to do with the channel or forum.
        The press are protected in many was. I would suggest that if actual journalists are doing their jobs, they should not be responsible as it is in the public interest.
        However, how many actual nonpartisan, noncorporate real journalists do we have anymore?
        Were the rights and protections given to independent public servants meant t

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          Freedom of speech only protects you from state censorship an retaliation. Fscebook is not the a state.

          Freedom of speech is a natural right, neither created by government nor owned by a corporation, however large. You seem to be confusing "freedom of speech" with "First Amendment", which doesn't apply to Australia in the first place.

          I would suggest that if actual journalists are doing their jobs, they should not be responsible as it is in the public interest.

          The press are not some aristocracy and deserve no privileged. They rights of people are the rights of people. Creating special groups of people who are "more equal than others" never ends well.

          However, how many actual nonpartisan, noncorporate real journalists do we have anymore?

          Such a thing never existed. There were only journalists who fooled you.

  • Wouldn't this also mean that the media outlets in turn can sue Facebook for the exact same thing? I've been invited to use Facebook over 100 times so the same argument would apply.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Is it *all* the same thing? If Facebook were simply a depository of user comments, sure, but Facebook also promotes content based on what it thinks will keep you engaged with the site. And it's constantly hankering for attention, especially if you're silly enough to install the mobile app.

  • Everytime I read any government officials take on the internet it's like reading a Monty Python sketch; one where they're trying to convict a woman of being a witch because she weighs as much as a duck. I shudder to think what their take on AI is going to be.
  • Each one should be thoroughly and manually vetted before posting. If they don't want to hire qualified high paid lawyers to do this, then they can disable comments. :)
  • by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Sunday May 31, 2020 @11:58PM (#60129974)

    ... the outlets were "first or primary distributors" ...

    Let's not forget that Facebook, like a newspaper, is disseminating comments to make a profit: Why should a faceless corporation be rewarded for defamation, misinformation and invasion of privacy? That is the pinnacle of corporatism.

    Facebook comments are just like letters to the editor: The newspaper still has a responsibility of due diligence. The US model of social media being a cave wall in the wilderness, under the guise of free speech, has turned everyone into publisher and democratized stupidity.

    The 'free speech' excuse carries much less weight in Australia. Unlike the USA, Australia has strict truth-in-advertising and defamation laws, limiting the 'he rapes dogs' propaganda so common to American public discussion.

    • I read on the internet that you rape cats.
    • "Unlike the USA, Australia has strict truth-in-advertising and defamation laws,"

      The USA does have crap advertising law. But the defamation laws are pretty solid, in particular that truth is an absolute defense.

      We have laws against libel and slander. We just don't have laws against harming people's reputations with facts.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Facebook comments are just like letters to the editor

      Except that a newspaper can choose which comments to publish.

      They don't get to choose who writes to them in the first place, or what those people might write.

      With this decision, the only option in the relevant jurisdictions is for people or companies with facebook pages to not allow any public comments on their pages at all, lest they be held liable for something someone else says.

      • Or to curate them (like letters to a newspaper), or to show due diligence with moderators intervention.

        BTW it is Australia, RTFA.

        • by mark-t ( 151149 )

          If they choose to only allow that form of commenting, then people cannot post public comments on their facebook page, as I said.

          I didn't once say it wasn't at all possible for them to assume responsibility for what appears, I only said it wasn't possible without taking away the ability for people to make public comments on their facebook page.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Facebook comments are nothing like letters to the editor. Letters to the editor are read and selected before publication, Facebook comments go live instantly and rely on user reports for moderation.

      That's the fundamental reason for Section 230 to exist. The shear volume of user generated comments and material is so great that requiring human oversight before publication would destroy many websites.

      • ... human oversight before publication would destroy many websites.

        Then you've already decided a comment has more 'rights' than a person being hounded, vilified, doxxed, defamed or threatened. The court decided such "innocent dissemination" is not an excuse: Facebook is in charge and thus responsible for the safety of others.

        ... user reports for moderation.

        In this case, Facebook (or the users), didn't react to Voller's threats, which the court deemed irresponsible.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm not saying it's ideal, but I don't think pre-approval is the solution.

        • >> human oversight before publication would destroy many websites.

          > Then you've already decided a comment has more 'rights' than a person being hounded,

          No, what's been decided is that free speech is more important than individuals' right to be free from harassment, because while no one involved is condoning harassment, everyone involved believed that free speech is critical to democracy.

          It may seem simple to us techno-elite nerds, but operating a website and getting content viewed by others comes w

  • Of course you're responsible for the actions of another person. That's the system we voted for. Next are you're going to tell me that I'm responsible for my own actions?

  • Facebook would clearly be the responsible part of responsibility follows the path of facilitator.
    Think Facebook should get their lawyers in here. Er Jill all Australien politician accounts to stay safe.

  • If they read scripts from masters and corporations.
    Push political agendas agendas, that are obviously screwed.
    If they don't protect people by providing object news, as bland as that sounds.
    And many more attributes, as to what journalism is.

    Then yeah, they should be help responsible, as they are merely agitators, no matter which partisans claim them.
    If something happens (like pizza-gate) and they legitimize a false perceptions, they aren't reporting, they're merely stirring the pot.

    Not covered, under freedom

  • Who is Dylan Voller? (Score:3, Informative)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @03:10AM (#60130296) Homepage

    So the Slashdot story (naturally) leaves out the very important context of who the hell is Dylan Voller and why is he relevant? I looked it up and turns out he's a teenage psychopath who threatened to rape people, burn down their houses, and all the other usual warning signs that psychopaths show when they're young. Subsequently he was turned over to the justice system where he received poor treatment. When prisoners won't cooperate, they get strapped to this special kind of wheelchair that limits their movements and get a spit guard installed so that they can't spread diseases by spitting on the staff [youtu.be].

    Well, footage was taken of him in the chair and it outraged a lot of people. Prison staff are poorly paid, hardly trained, and when they're faced with a non-cooperating psychopath, they tend to do what untrained, poorly paid people do in situations like that. Needless to say, all the usual societal factions had exactly the same reactions you'd expect them to have. Some people said, "we must protect our most vulnerable" while others said, "we must protect ourselves from dangerous sociopaths." The second faction evidently went overboard in dumping on Voller, and this is what set the judge off.

    It's one of those situations where everyone behaved badly. It's just that out of all involved, nobody expected anything of them. The prison guards, the public...nobody expects them to be responsible. But journalists...we do expect them to act responsibly, because they're smart, ethical people who have a big position in our society. They had the job of preventing ugly reactions online, and they didn't do it. Thus the judge is setting things to rights. Of course, people will complain about Freedom of Speech - but this is Australia. They don't have the US-style extremist First Amendment. They have far more sensible laws. That's what this is all about.

    • by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @07:25AM (#60130632) Journal

      They don't have the US-style extremist First Amendment. They have far more sensible laws.

      You're entitled to your opinion but could you please explain what harm you think was caused by people expressing opinions about the handling of Dylan Voller and related cases that you personally consider to have crossed a line? In other words, can you please explain why you think those laws are "more sensible" than allowing [mostly] unrestricted freedom of expression?

      The USA does have restrictions on things such as uttering threats, incitement to violence and fraud. But the people making those claims would typically be the ones charged, not the service they used as a delivery mechanism. Though I suppose if it was published in a traditional media, passing through an editorial process and being directly hand selected for print or broadcast, then the publisher could be liable to some extent depending on the circumstances. I think in practice they'd most likely be faced with an injunction rather than facing fines or imprisonment, though I'm sure there are extreme cases that people could point us to where they were more complicit and faced actual punishment.

  • This is the same situation as France a few weeks ago - another Western nation trying to grapple with the enormous amplification effect the internet has. Most countries don't actually take the US view of freedom of speech is a right without limit. Americans may disagree with this notion, but it does have some sensible rationale: 1) Civil disorder is brought about by people disagreeing very strongly with one another. 2) The internet short circuits those disagreements - allowing people with opposite views to
    • There are plenty of limits to free speech in the U.S. Libel, slander, fraud, threats, inciting panic, etc. are all things that would be OK if there were no limits on the freedom of speech. But they are all restricted.

      Frankly, our domination of global culture through our media companies seems to suggest we're the ones with a model to emulate.

  • for the news they broadcast on TV & radio and on their websites, and heavy fines for falsehoods that are merely sensationalism, especially when they cause people to do things like take poisonous substances or cause riots, looting & arson, i believe in freedom of speech buy people should be held responsible for the things they say, freedom of speech should not be a free ticket to say anything with impunity = with freedom comes responsibility
  • First, FaceBook is not disseminating anything. They are a website you can choose to go view or not. They don't send you content unless you create an account, and set up 'notifications'. The judge is an idiot.

    Second, FaceBook is not a publisher. They're more of that cornerstore bookstand you choose to visit in your trenchcoat and top hat and either view rags, mags, or porn. That's your choice.

    FaceBook neither created the content, curated the content, distributed the content, or forced anyone to view it.

    • Check the TOS. It explicitly grants FB the right to publish. If it didn't, then FB couldn't reproduce your copyrighted comments and distribute them to other users. They are a publisher, no matter how hard you try to misuse the word.

    • by kenh ( 9056 )
      "Facebook comments are just like letters to the editor:"

      Yeah, except they're not.

      "Letters to the editor" are read, considered, and approved for publication by the paper. Facebook does not review and approve each posting - if it did, they would cease being a platform and enjoying certain legal privileges (Section 230).

      This why the Twitter case is so interesting - they are taking it upon themselves to review SOME tweets, and in some cases they are choosing to comment/flag tweets they take issue with. Twitter
      • Facebook does not review and approve each posting - if it did, they would cease being a platform and enjoying certain legal privileges (Section 230).

        This is oft-repeated, but entirely FALSE.

        Section 230 specifically grants the ability to publish user-generated content without assuming any liability for what the content says.

        (47 USC 230 c 1) Treatment of publisher or speaker- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

        It further grants the freedom to censor without liability.

        (47 USC 230 c 2 A) Civil liability- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

        There is no provision in the code for them to lose these protections. In order for them to lose these protections, the law would have to be amended.

  • They are suing the media, not whoever wrote the defamatory comments. Surely this/these individual/s should have been the first to be approached ? However: as individuals they are hard to find and have small pockets and so not worth paying a lawyer to sue.

    • by kenh ( 9056 )
      The media amplified the reach of the defamatory comments, and under Australian law they don't have the same protections other countries provide. Under Australian law the publisher is responsible for what they publish, there is no section 230 providing protection as a platform.
  • Back before there was an internet and antisocial media, people with strong opinions sent letters to newspaper editors in hopes of getting published on an opinion page. The newspaper editors didn't allow profanity, poor grammar, or nutty stuff to bring down the world's opinion of their esteemed newspaper. Stupid people had no voice and they didn't deserve one. There was no question about whether a published article was opinion or news (based on facts, not "alternative facts") because it was put on an editori

    • Thanks for the fine example, mark_reh. You just undid two paragraphs of a sound logical argument by inserting a single one sentence political line that turned you into one of those same dumb people.

      The truth is, as you have shown, people just can't help themselves - and everything degrades into politics.
    • by kenh ( 9056 )
      If a newspaper chose to publish defamatory letters to the editor, the paper would open itself up to litigation - they received the letter, reviewed it, approved it, and published it - they can't plead ignorance of the contents of the letter, as your "antisocial media" does.

      Newspapers do not publish anything and everything sent to them, they selectively publish a sampling of viewpoints/opinions from the letters received. Being on the editorial page doesn't somehow avoid responsibility for what you choose to
    • Antisocial media caters to the lowest of the low and gives them a voice they do not deserve.

      The next time I feel like posting anything to a forum, social media platform, slashdot article or other I will be sure to send you a message to see if my opinions deserve to have a voice. I'll also be sure to inform everyone I know that you've really stepped up, took one for the team and are the self appointed authority on who does and does not deserve to speak. /Extreme Sarcasm

      Many would argue that one of the wonderful things about the Internet is that it gives people who would have been otherwise ignored

      • I didn't say that I am the arbiter of all things good and bad. I merely pointed out that when there was something to lose by publishing nonsense or worse, there was a lot less of it around. Now there's nothing to lose, so people say whatever dumb or malicious thing comes to mind.

        Yes, each of us has to decide which posts are good and which are bad, but the problem is that too many stupid people are unable to do so accurately, hence pizza-gate, etc. Antisocial media is inherently anticivilization. It caters t

      • This is dangerous for the powers to be. You can't have people question authority for they are god and know best /s

        Of course "Won't somebody pleeeeeeeezzzzee think of the chyldrun", Terrorism! Riots! Blah blah blah......

    • Slashdot is also social media, and all of the complaints you have listed could equally apply to the discussions here. I see that you exempt yourself and your interests from condemnation, so I'm curious as to the distinction.
      • In what way did I exempt myself or my interests?

        Indeed, many of the discussions and comments here could stand some moderation. Sometimes, even my own...

        • Oh, well you said that one should stay away from social media, while on a social media platform.

          I do think you are overestimating the capabilities of modern and past media, however. For example, Fox News, Tabloid, and 'yellow journalism,' generally.
  • Just shut down comments. Shutter the Internet until it's indistinguishable from vapid TV.
    • A lot of sites have done just that. Try finding a comments section on any lamestream media site these days. Or try to comment on a Youtube video marked "It's made for KIDZ!"

      Of course, the usual excuses apply for them doing that.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...