Australia Rules That Sites Can be Held Legally Responsible for Public Comments Sections

The cyber police just got weird.

I just had sex with a woman and slipped off the condom without her knowledge before posting “COVID IS A HOAX – NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER” in the comments section of an Australian website.

I am literally down by law in this New World Order.

I’ve got the sex police and the cyber police breathing down my neck.

I’m basically the real life Joker at this point.


Australian media companies could be liable for third-party comments made on their social media posts after the High Court upheld a ruling on a case by a formerly imprisoned teen who sued media companies over comments about him.

The five-two decision on Wednesday creates a precedent applying to Australian media companies, which potentially makes them liable as publishers of comments from social media users as though they made the statements themselves.

The ruling comes after an appeal by Nine Entertainment and News Corp in relation to the case of Dylan Voller, who in 2016 was filmed suffering cruel treatment in a Northern Territory prison.

The footage of Voller was posted online by Australian outlets and attracted comments which he claimed were defamatory. Voller sued the Australian, Sydney Morning Herald (now owned by Nine Entertainment), and News Corp’s Sky News Australia for the comments, claiming the outlets were responsible for the third party inputs, sparking a four-year legal battle.

The defending media companies argued that they couldn’t be considered publishers of their readers’ comments.

However, the majority of the Court held that the liability of a “publisher” depends upon whether they, by “facilitating and encouraging” the relevant communication, “participated” in the communication of the defamatory matter.

Media companies, “by the creation of a public Facebook page and the posting of content on that page, facilitated, encouraged and thereby assisted the publication of comments from third-party Facebook users,” reads the ruling. It concludes that the news companies were, therefore, the “publishers of the third-party comments.”

The ruling opens the door for Voller to pursue the outlets’ parent companies for defamation.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Steward argued that companies posting to Facebook “starts an electronic conversation” that could spark “thousands of comments from around the world.” He added that the companies would have “no actual means of controlling the contents of such comment”.

This is obviously just a way to shut down public forums on the internet. Applying it to comments sections is just a way to justify the shutting down of any public comments. No website that allows reader feedback or community participation can survive being held responsible for every comment posted.

This is the issue that has been brought up in America with people who are against censorship pushing for Section 230 to be abolished. In theory, this would remove the liability protections for smaller websites, while not really actually doing anything to stifle censorship on big websites.