SofiaUnplugged

Throughout the 21^st century, social media has become an increasingly important aspect of people’s everyday lives. With access to the internet, anyone has the ability to upload content about anything/anyone they want, henceforth making defamation at an increased risk. As a consumer of social media myself, I constantly see defamation risks in Australian media.  

What is defamation?  

Defamation is the wrong of injuring another’s reputation without good reason or justification. It has the ability to permanently harm one’s reputation especially in a high role such as the government. Since the internet has been around, it has been easier to defame an individual’s reputation through social media and other free to use websites. Defamation laws aim to balance the freedom of speech in Australia with the right to be protected from violence or attacks on people’s reputation. News media tends to be the main source of defamation, although other media sources such as photos, satire, and videos can also cause harm to an individual’s reputation.  

Legislative Reform 

Defamation laws in Australia changed in June of 2021, excluding WA and NT. Defamation reforms established a renewed threshold for material concerned in the public interest. If the publisher holds a reasonable confidence of the topics current interest in the public eye, they can proceed for a ‘Public Interest Defence’. In doing so, the publisher is required to have a reasonable belief that the publication of the material is of public interest. Social media has had a big impact on the change of these laws as more people publish content about relevant topics which are hard to be seen as defamatory or truth. As anyone has access to these it makes this content less reliable for audiences especially about topics in the public eye.  

Barilaro v FriendlyJordies 

In 2020, content creator ‘FriendlyJordies’ (Jordan Shanks-Markovina) posted a video on YouTube defaming now former Australian politician John Barilaro. He posted multiple videos regarding the premier, one of which mockingly depicted the now ex-NSW Deputy Premier as Mario, the fictional video game character who wins races by cheating. Shanks satirical stunts and commentary also included content about alleged incompetence and corruption. The federal court ruled Barilaro as a victim left “traumatised” by a campaign of “relentless bullying”. The two most insulting videos at the centre of the defamation case had hundreds of thousands of views therefore contributing thousands of dollars to Google. Having failed to follow its own policies, Google did not prevent the hate speech posted by Shanks. Barilaro sued Google and the owner of YouTube which as a result, left Google being enforced to pay the former deputy $715,000 in total in damages over the ‘abusive’ videos. The case was settled in November of 2021 with Shanks apologising and editing the inappropriate content out of the videos. Although, Shanks continued to post satirical content about the ex-deputy which was left up on YouTube after the case. The judge ruled this as ‘improper pressure’ on Barilaro during the case. Social media’s ability to take a physical toll on people’s mental health, as Barilaro states “I was in a dark place” highlights the mental health concerns actions of online media can have. Barilaro blamed the case for his departure from politics claiming that the longevity of the case took a toll.  

Tingey Law Firm (via Unsplash) 

The Communications Council promote respect and transparency on social media. Chairmen Mark Green said, “Our purpose is to foster the long-term prosperity of our industry (social media) and to elevate advertising as a profession. Now is the right time to reclaim advertising and to refocus what we do as an industry body, re-evaluate what we stand for.” The ACA’s (Advertising Council Australia) change in important initiatives follows as the media industry grows and changes seeking a strategic direction which will foster the long-term profitability of the company to keep up with growing changes in the industry.  

What have online publishers learnt from this? 

Modern day content creators need to be aware of the impacts their content has on their audiences. Publishers should engage in proper and adequate research about their content topic first before posting it to the public to ensure not to post derogatory or defamatory. Research is also extremely important for publishers to not have their own opinions on people’s personal lives especially people in the public eye as it is likely for the publisher to be sued for defamatory content.  

Conclusion 

Overall, defamatory comments made on online published content has the ability to have severe consequences on both the victim and the publisher. As seen in this case of John Barilaro vs Shanks, it had a huge influence on current defamation laws which have been put in place today since this case and the online publishing industry. In this example, the wrong doing of one individual led to a fine of $715,000 for Google to pay even though they did not create the video. Although Google did not post the video, their platform played a significant role in the overall result that the video led to. Publishers should take this case as an example of what could happen if they don’t engage in proper research on a person and the website, they publish it on.