Australian court rules media liable for Facebook comments
Canberra, (AP): Australia's highest court on Wednesday made a landmark ruling that media outlets are publishers of allegedly defamatory comments posted by third parties on their official Facebook pages.
The High Court dismissed an argument by some of Australia's largest media organisations Fairfax Media Publications, Nationwide News and Australian News Channel that for people to be publishers, they must be aware of the defamatory content and intend to convey it.
The court found in a 5-2 majority decision that by facilitating and encouraging the comments, the companies had participated in their communication.
The decision opens the media organizations to be sued for defamation by former juvenile detainee Dylan Voller.
Voller wants to sue the television broadcaster and newspaper publishers over comments on the Facebook pages of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia and The Bolt Report.
His defamation case launched in the New South Wales state Supreme Court in 2017 was put on hold while the separate question of whether the media companies were liable for Facebook users' comments was decided.
The companies posted content on their pages about news stories that referred to Voller's time in a Northern Territory juvenile detention centre.
Facebook users responded by posting comments that Voller alleges were defamatory.
News Corp Australia, which owns the two broadcast programmes and two of the three newspapers targeted in the defamation case, called for the law to be changed.
The ruling was significant for anyone who maintains a public social media page by finding they can be liable for comments posted by others on that page even when they are unaware of those comments, News Corp Australia executive chairman Michael Miller said in a statement.
This highlights the need for urgent legislative reform and I call on Australia's attorneys general to address this anomaly and bring Australian law into line with comparable western democracies, Miller added.
Nine, the new owner of The Sydney Morning Herald, said it hoped a current review of defamation laws by Australian state and territory governments would take into account the ruling and its consequences for publishers.
We are obviously disappointed with the outcome of that decision, as it will have ramifications for what we can post on social media in the future, a Nine statement said.
We also note the positive steps which the likes of Facebook have taken since the Voller case first started which now allow publishers to switch off comments on stories, Nine added.
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Voller's lawyers welcomed the ruling for its wider implications for publishers.
This is a historic step forward in achieved justice for Dylan and also in protecting individuals, especially those who are in a vulnerable position, from being the subject of unmitigated social media mob attacks, a lawyers' statement said.
This decision put responsibility where it should be; on media companies with huge resources, to monitor public comments in circumstances where they know there is a strong likelihood of an individual being defamed, the statement added.
The High Court decision upholds the rulings of two lower courts on the question of liability.
Courts have previously ruled that people can be held liable for the continued publication of defamatory statements on platforms they control, such as notice boards, only after they became aware of the comments. (AP)
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Madras HC withdraws its order on bumper-to-bumper insurance
Chennai, Sep 14: The Madras High Court has withdrawn its earlier order directing insurance companies to ensure bumper-to-bumper insurance for five years for new vehicles sold from September 1, 2021, after IRDA and others submitted it was impossible to implement the directive.
The withdrawal follows the submissions of the counsels for the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), General Insurance Company (GIC) and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), a non-profit entity that has been espousing the cause of automobile industry, that the stipulation was impossible to implement.
"This court feels that the direction issued on August 4 this year in paragraph 13 may not be conducive and suitable for implementation in the current situation. Therefore, the said direction in that para is hereby withdrawn for the present," Justice S Vaidyanathan said on Monday .
The judge hoped and trusted the lawmakers would look into this aspect and examine the need for suitable amendment in the Act relating to wide coverage of vehicles so as to protect the innocent victims. In view of withdrawal of the direction, the circular dated August 31 issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner in this connection also stands cancelled, the judge said.
IRDAI, GIC and SIAM stated the views expressed by the judge on August 4 in respect of protective coverage to uninsured innocent victims, such as gratuitous occupants in a private car and pillion riders, will be duly taken care of in consultation with IRDAI to safeguard the interest of innocent victims, which was the judge's anxiety.
They submitted that the order mandating the coverage of bumper to bumper policy may not be logistically and economically feasible for effective implementation in the present legal dispensation. They would have unintended impact, causing severe repercussions on the society and therefore, the directions issued by this Court may be withdrawn in the interest of the policyholders, automobile industry and public at large.
They also brought to the notice of the judge that the issue of long term third party insurance coverage has been mandated by the Apex Court as early as in September, 2018, and the regulating body -- IRDAI, has been periodically monitoring over the changing scenario from time to time and hence, there is no need for issuance of such compulsory directions.
They said that IRDAI will consider better and fuller insurance coverage to all unfortunate victims, be it drivers, owners or gratuitous occupants or pillion riders, as the case may be, and prayed for suitable modification/withdrawal of the directions issued.
"Considering the overall submissions made by the parties, including the counsels and taking into account the concern of the IRDAI, this court feels that the direction issued by this Court on August 4 in para No13 may not be conducive and suitable for implementation in the current situation. Therefore, the said direction is hereby withdrawn for the present," the judge said.
Last month, the Madras High Court ruled that "bumper-to-bumper" insurance should be mandatory whenever a new vehicle is sold, from September 1. This must be in addition to covering the driver, passengers and owner of the vehicle, for a period of five years, the court had held.
