Be careful what you post online – it could lead you into some hot water!
15 July 2021 | Disputes & Claims |
Further to our blog on “Social Media and the law: 6 things you need to know”, as well as potential issues with employers or the CPR, you can often find yourself going down the rabbit hole of comments to a post. Or you may even come across an original posting which negatively comments on someone, or some organisation. The question then gets asked, at which point does it become defamatory?
Defamation is when an untruth is said, or written, by one party, about a second party, to a third party. As a result of that comment, the second party must suffer from, or be likely to suffer from, harm. With regards to a company, this “harm” is usually financial. With individuals, “harm” is more broadly used, and may include reputation.
However, it appears a claim for defamation is difficult to be successful when social media comments in in issue. In a 2020 case of Stoker v Stoker, the judge held that a new class of reader has emerged; the “social media user”, and this type of reader would read, process and analyse posts in a different way than had they read it by another medium, for example, in a newspaper.
In a recent case published in June 2021, Webb v Jones, hinged mainly on whether a number of comments to an original post:
- Counted as a single publication;
- had been an extensive publication(s) and therefore been enough to cause, or likely cause, serious harm, or would damage to reputation be insignificant; and
- Could it easily identify the Claimant.
The Court held that despite the comments being made relatively close together in time, given there were 382 comments and replies to the thread, the seven posts made by the Defendant were “far removed from the opening post, and are separated from each other.” They therefore were not one single publication. The claim was therefore incorrectly pleaded, and defective.
There was no evidence provided, and the Court held that it was unlikely, that the Claimant’s reputation was damaged in the “real world”. Therefore, the claim was again defective.
Lastly, there were many comments in the thread by people who said that they were confused by the whole post, and although used the Claimant’s name within the posts “Sharon Webb”, it was held that this was not enough to identify her. This would mean the claim was again defective.
Although the Defendant was able to have this claim struck out of Court at an early stage in Court proceedings, it is a stark reminder that what is said on the internet and social media may cause serious legal allegations.
Back
